Is Obama' Speech loaded or what

The term conspiracy theory is used to cast doubt and dis-credit theories which usually have a lot of evidence supporting what they claim.

I remember hearing one expert say (can't remember his name right now) that,

"If there's enough evidence to prove something is true beyond doubt, then it's no longer a theory but a fact."

Salaam

format_quote Originally Posted by Independent

Do you really think so? Let's take a closer look at the line he is following.

I do differ with bro Jedi Master on his analysis (I agree with you on the protocol of Zion). In fact many of the Middle Eastern dictatorships are very friendly with the US. (eg. Saudi Arabia, Gulf States etc). So I agree Western powers are not dogmatic in their opposition to Islamic movements (eg. They were happy to support the resistance to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan). They just oppose anybody who don’t serve their interests. And over the years Islamic groups tend to align with those who oppose American hegemonic apparitions in the Middle East.

But like I said there is plenty of reasons why the western presence in the Middle East has been resented for decades (primarily since world war 1 when European powers divided up the middle east into spheres of influence and installed satraps to ensure their interests would be served at the expense of the general population).



There’s plenty written on why the western (primarily US) is so keen to keep the Middle East under their thumb. Good comprehensive place to start

http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20010304.htm

Tangently related. Go to post 49 (last post) for what I think on issues facing Muslims in Europe and the prejudice they face. Certain sections of the intellectual classes are particularly hostile

Europe hostile to muslim world?

Ill just finish with some quotes

The Lausanne Treaty was signed on 24th July 1924. The states recognised Turkeys independence. Britain evacuated Istanbul and the straits and Harrington left Turkey. Consequently, one of the British MPs protested against Curzon in the House of Commons for recognising Turkeys independence. Curzon answered him by saying:

‘the point at issue is that Turkey has been destroyed and shall never rise again, because we have destroyed her spiritual power: The khilafah and Islam’.

On how the ideology of secularism was used to undermine the Islamic basis of these societies

On the reasons why some Muslims are hostile to certain aspects of secularism

Christians and Jews in the West live in secularised societies in which most people have a stronger allegiance to their countries than to their religion. However, in many parts of the world where the nation state is of more recent origin, people continue to derive their sense of identity less from nationality than from their religion. While most Muslim majority counties are headed by modern secular governments today, in some of them a strong sense of national allegiance has yet to take firm hold. Not surprisingly efforts to secularise society that go against people’s loyalties often create résistance

More relevant perhaps to many Muslims suspicions of secularisation is a history of governments ruthlessly imposing secularisation on an unwilling public. Despite episodes in Western history where religion was brutally repressed, secularisation in the West is often perceived as a relatively benign process that evolved over time and reflected the popular will. It has been seen as guaranteeing religious freedom and enabling religion to concentrate on its spiritual ideas.

In many Muslim countries the process has been far more traumatic and coercive. In the 1020s the Turkish leader Attaturk, determined to build a modern state in Turkey after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, suppressed the madrasa, abolished sufi orders, mandated a latin alphabet instead of Arabic, imposed western surnames in place of old Islamic names and titles, and forced Turks to wear Western dress.

Reza Shah Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran who rules from 1921 to 1941, stripped the ulama, the religious scholars, of their endowment, replaced the sharia with civil law code, prohibited citizens from going on hajj, suppressed shi religious rites commemorating the death of Husayn, and forbade Islamic dress. His soldiers tore of women’s veils in the street, and unarmed protesters who demonstrated against the regimes dress laws in 1935 were shot. Hundred died. His son Muhammed Reza Shah was just as anyto religious. He closed madrasas, restricted public displays of religion, and imprisoned, exiled and killed many members of the ulama

Because of these experiences secularism is perceived by many Muslims as anti-religious and intolerant and a threat to the foundations of their society.

Now getting back on topic

Yeah Obama taking credit for the Arab spring, really does takes the biscuit

format_quote Originally Posted by Independent

It was exposed beyond dispute as a fake many years ago.

I would like to read what evidence you have to make this claim.

This book is an outright racist, genocidal text and there is zero excuse for giving it approval and toleration in 2012, in this forum or anywhere else.

If it is authentic, then there is every reason in the world to 'spread the word' about what it has to say. If it is a fabricated hoax then let's see the proof.

Ok, so I guess between all these replies I have an indirect answer to my question at least – there is no document. The Protocols is the best you’ve got.

I’ve been googling The Protocols today and it really is depressing. I thought only the occasional extremist crazy guy had time for this kind of obvious junk but it’s all over the place. Neo Nazis, right wing white political parties and, it seems, large numbers of Muslims like yourself. I see it is very popular today in Egypt, Palestine and other parts of the Islamic world and has even received tv coverage. Amazingly, it seems to be 9/11 that has triggered off the new increase in sales. I really hope that moderate Muslims recognise this book for the racist, genocidal text that it is.

format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال

actually no one has discredited the protocols,

You show an amazing lack of intellectual curiosity. The Protocols has been thoroughly debunked, and for internal textual reasons besides anything else.

It purports to be a secretly-gathered record of a clandestine Jewish world-domination conference in the late 1890s. Yet portions of the text are plagiarised from books written 20-30 years earlier – laughably, even including a work of fiction. If this were a hadith, you would have thrown it out without a second’s delay.

The purpose of the book was to stir up a pogrom in Russia in the 1900s and it succeeded in this. Afterwards, a few decades later, Hitler found everything he needed to know about the world here and he made it a compulsory school text. People bring their prejudices to this book and find them confirmed. That's why they like it.

Interesting company you keep.

format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال

One only needs to read the protocols to see them mirror image life so who is in need for the likes of you to decide whether it not they'd been debunked?

In another thread I saw you criticise someone for giving credence to a Shia hadith, which he liked because it appeared to mirror today's events. You told him that the source could not be trusted, so no matter how apparently prophetic it might be, you rejected it and reprimanded him.

Yet now we have a source that is more clearly a fake than any Shia hadith, yet you are falling over yourself to accept it.

As i say, the power of The Protocols is to re-inforce the prejudices that people already hold. Which in your case are at the extreme end of the spectrum.

format_quote Originally Posted by Junon

I do differ with bro Jedi Master on his analysis (I agree with you on the protocol of Zion).

Great. Please note, I am at no point saying here that there isn’t prejudice against Muslims in the west and I don't necessarily disagree with the things you list. I'm not talking about specific events here. What I am saying, is that the notion of an organised, international conspiracy dating back to the Crusades, linking all these events together, is bunkum.

format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال

Debunked would mean they've no basis in reality and not necessarily a date of publication

To summarise again: The Protocols were published in about 1903. They are supposed to be an account of a real meeting in the late 1890s. But some of the text is plagiarised from books written decades earlier. So The Protocols has to be a fake, whether or not you agree with what’s written in it.

format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال

You're a a pseudo-intellect who seems to have something to say about everything as if an authority figure on the subject & when it is clear that you're not- since your words never address content but always take a superficial cosmetic form whether here or on the evolution thread using third party sources and not even the academic sort

You forgot to mention the usual bit about me being a five year old?