User login
Author Information
Poll
Why have you visited this website?
To check for updates
11%
Read posts
39%
Contribute to discussions
6%
Share content
3%
Social media brought me here
6%
Tis fate
35%
Total votes: 634
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Upcoming Events
- 21 Jun 2025 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 21 Jun 2025 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 21 Jun 2025 - 11:30 to 17:00
- 6 Jul 2025 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 6 Jul 2025 - 11:30 to 16:30
Quick Links
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
that sounds like dajjal to me... didnt know you guys believed in him too!
[size=9]I NEVER WORE IT BECAUSE OF THE TALIBAN, MOTHER. I LIKE THE [b]MODESTY[/b] AND [b]PROTECTION[/b] IT AFFORDS ME FROM THE EYES OF MEN.[/size] [url=http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/Dust.html]Dust, X-Men[/url]
The Dajjal is one of the signs when the world is coming to an end.
Females will mostly be dajjals followers....husbands will even tie up their wives to stop them going to dajjal.
Two of the places where the Dajjal won't be allowed into by angels, Makkah and Madinah.
He'll only have one eye....
I have a lazy eye.
I reckon one way to bring on the forces of evil is to start speculating as to who represents this utmost evil that you can gossip and spin about all you like.
[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]
Well... it's somewhat complicated. Many people throughout history and in the present day believe in a literal understanding of Revelation (and parts of Daniel+Ezekiel) however most Christian scholars since Revelation was written by John of Patmos believe it to be a kind of 'code' for early Christians and early Jews under domination by cruel foreign powers. The Beast (or what is erroneously called 'anti-christ') specifically is believed to be a representation of the roman emperor Nero - who was particularly gruel to Christias.
The anti-Christ is something much different. That's actually referred to in the letters to the apostolic churches; and is a general reference to those who commit apostacy. Very early in the church - probably around 4th centruy A.D people began to use the terms "the beast" and "anti-christ" interchangeably; and synthesized a sort of 'evil jesus' that will go around decieving the faithful, performing miracles and gathering people to follow him.
Khan, Dust didn't seem to recognize the term "the Beast" which indicates to me it's not actually a word from the Qur'an. If you are actually making a reference to Revelation, be careful since the terms are not correctly interpreted as the same and it represents a very different set of ideas from what (I think?) you are trying to communicate.
USA should respond to the letter from Ahmadinejad. Even ex secretary of state Madeline albright said the US should formally respond to Iran’s concerns. Yet US/Israel dismissed the letter with contempt. What does that tell the Iranian people? That their views are of no value, their concerns are not legitimate, they are uncivilised and dangerous.
Iran is not allowed to harness nuclear energy, while in the UK Tony Blair demands the construction of new nuclear power plants to solve our energy crisis. The double standards and hypocrisy are clear for all to see. I don’t recall Iran invading anyone recently.
Given the shady role the US has played in Iran’s recent history, overthrowing a democratic government, supporting the brutal Shah and his immoral regime, it is no surprise that Iran feels threatened and intimidated by US/Israel intentions.
Similar double standards are shown when Israel says it won’t negotiate with “terrorists”, despite the fact that Israel was founded by terrorism, and relies on active oppression to sustain its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories
This causes concern among Americans as well. It often seems that the best interests of Israel are put before the best interests of the USA, in regards to Middle East policy. Respected American political commentators John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have written important articles about the activities of the Israeli lobby and the undue hold they have over the US foreign policy. Predictably they were branded “anti-semitic” by the powerful friends of Israel, a common smear tactic.
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1744960,00.html
was khan even referring to the religious connotations of the word when he used it? i don't remember him saying it's a word from the Quran?
[size=9]I NEVER WORE IT BECAUSE OF THE TALIBAN, MOTHER. I LIKE THE [b]MODESTY[/b] AND [b]PROTECTION[/b] IT AFFORDS ME FROM THE EYES OF MEN.[/size] [url=http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/Dust.html]Dust, X-Men[/url]
I don't think we should respond to the letter other than to note that political stunts by the President of Iran are not acceptable responses to world communities inquiries into the status of their illegal nuclear program. We can't give him any more populist credit or publicity than he's already grabbed through stunts like this and his "holocaust meeting."
The wise route would be to take those concerns in the letter which are legitimate and unrelated to Iran and pull them out of context of his letter; discuss them and resolve them seperately from Iran then take all the credit for seolving x, y and z problems. In short hijacking his popularity grabbing scheme.
As for the Israeli lobby, as I said before it's powerful however it is a total myth to think that is the driving force behind our apprehension of the Irani nuclear program. They were founded as a radical nation hostile to the United States and have rarely deviated from the path, we don't trust them and have no reason to trust them. Especially after that incident with the Khobar towers and their purchasing of information from Dr. Khan.
If the rest of the world is unpleasant with the United States particular interest in the illegal nuclear program that's fine - but I assure you "Jews" aren't to blaim for our suspicion.
The international community is something entirely different, there is a serious problem here which needs to be resolved, the Security Council, General Assembly and IAEA all recognize that Iran is breaking the law and could possibly be developing weapons, but that we cannot check due to their lack of cooperation. Discounting international observations just because "Jewish" America plays such a prominent voice in the matter; is both irrational and irresponsible.
I can't really tell, he said "the Beast" (eg. "the BEAST is at work") and keeps highlighting the word... so clearly he is driving at a point.
That business about the Qur'an was me pointing out that he's using (if he means it that way) a specifically Christian term; it's not something found in the Qur'an and is unrecognizeable to Muslims (such as yourself). Dajjal is conceptually comparable but by no means is the same. In which case he needs to be aware his allusions are incorrect; the book of Revelation has a plethora of signs and events that precede the coming of Armageddon; and it's entirely possible it's all just a metaphor for Rome under Nero anyway.
Again if his intention is to draw allusions to the Bible he needs to be careful with how he does it.
It's entirely possible he's just referring to an animal - only he can clear that up.
Playing video games is supposed to be good for people with lazy eyes
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4849244.stm[/url]
Somebody should forward that to Nick Griffin
lol.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
dave:
It's entirely possible he's just referring to an animal - only he can clear that up.
the act of mass murder, bombing, crippling nations arn't really humane acts are they Dave? there aint even an animal that would be capable of carrying out such horrendous crimes - not sure where u got that from??
I find the Beast to be a more appropriate word, as I believe the acts mentioned above are beastly. Thought I made that very clear. Whether ur biblical translation of the characteristics, whether literal or metaphoric, differs from the type of acts mentioned has no relevance.. its Evil.
I really can't understand how a devout man of God such as yourself is trying so hard to make look good what clearly is evil.
Mate how and why do u do it?
[b][i]Round and round the Ka'bah,
Like a good Sahabah,
One step, Two step,
All the way to jannah[/i][/b]
What are you talking about?
I think he is talking about 'the beast' that others were confising woith 'the antichrist' and 'Dajjaal' earlier on.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
But didn't he just say he's not talking about the Bible? And what was all that creepy stuff about being a "God fearing man" and why am I doing something... I don't understand what point Khan is making at all.
Hi Dave. It’s not the “Jews”, the Israeli lobby also includes many extremist evangelical Christians. It’s not just about Iran either. US middle east policy in general is shaped by unquestioning, blind support for Israel even if it’s not in America’s best interest to further Israeli goals. It's certainly not in Americas best interest to be dragged into another disasterous war with Iran, although it may well be what Israel wants. What do you think of this study into the subject?
[i]The US national interest should be the primary object of American foreign policy. For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history.
Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.
Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.[/i]
[b]Mearsheimer and Walt [/b]- [u][i]The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy[/i][/u].
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
Hi Latifah,
I took 'the Jews' from Khan's post (the part you quoted). But at the end of the day Zionist conspiracies are really just anti-semitism with a more politically correct face. Popularized by David Duke (who recently did a seminar about Zionism being the biggest threat in the Modern world).
That said, and before I jump into the article you just provided are you familiar with the "Twin Pillars" doctrine?
Yes, I remember studying US foreign policy at uni last year. I don’t think this report is part of a fantasy or a conspiracy theory as both authors are respected academics. The editor of the London Review of Books, which published the report, is Jewish and the article cites Israeli historians who have been critical of the activities of the pro Israel lobby. Not everyone who criticises Israel can be written off as a Jew hater.
So would you say that opposition towards the BNP is really a cover for anti-white racism.
I would say that's a contrived question that lacks anything approaching a rational thought.
This is the [url=http://www.davidduke.com/]face[/url] of the Zionist watch crew. It's a euphamism for Jews, it is in the Muslim world just as it is in the back woods of Alabama.
Why
Actually plenty of other people say similar things. Infact it's generally claimed that the Left is the main source of anti-semitism in the world not Neo-nazis.Even jewish leftists who oppose Zionism are labelled such.
You're more likely to hear zionists in the west attacking George Galloway than you are to hear them attack Neo-nazi gangs in Russia who physically attack jews and other minorities.
David Duke represents a minority and appart from Patrick Buchanan there is overwhelming support for zionism among the mainstream Right. [/quote]
Also by the logic you're using because Hitler opposed communism it must therefore have been a good thing.
The centerpiece of US Middle Eastern policy is the Carter Doctrine, not Israel. It began under Nixon as the "Twin Pillars" doctrine, which stated that the foundations of US oil imports would be Iran and Saudi Arabia, and called for a continuation of indirect involvement in middle eastern development to protect those interests. Iran had a successful revolution in which the United States did not intervene to any consequence; resulting in a hostage crisis and one half of the twin pillars fallen. Consequently in January of 1980 Carter amended the twin pillars doctrine to say that the US would protect our (oil) interests in the Persian Gulf through direct intervention.
This was the beginning of our military buildup on the Persian Gulf (CENTCOM), our direct involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian problem and our interest in democratizing the Middle East.
Before these two doctrines our interest in the middle east was an uncodified amalgam of oil interests and keeping the Soviets out.
US policy toward Israel before this was hardly exempletive of an "unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world."
Our reasons for our minimal support of Israel in '67 had more to do with preventing a humanitarian disaster but more anything else keeping the Gulf of Akaber for regional stability. A nation of 3 million was facing a superior force of about 90 Million. However our only military involvement in the 1967 war was to sell Israel arms; something we were particularly good at in the 60's especially in Latin America; the rest of the Middle East and Africa and the deployment of a carrier off the coast of Israel for a worst case scenario. "The big lie" as we refer to it stateside is that the US actually carried out military attacks during the war or were directly involved in the conflict; which was reported by some Egyptian newspapers in an attempt to bring in Soviet support for the Arabs. No such attack ever occured.
Those 'scholars' mistake is to look at the Arab Israeli fighting out of context. To us it was just another battle in the war against the Soviets (who did, initially support the Arabs and again in 1970 in defiance of the the Truman and Roosevelt doctrines) and in the struggle to keep stability in the region so our oil would flow, that front only gained relevance to us when we needed bases throughout the middle east as part of the military buildup for Centcom. And when they failed Israel took secondary importance to Saudi Arabia (the only country in the region we actually declared we would unconditionally protect).
Israel isn't the "centerpiece" of US foreign policy - it's hardly even on the periphery. You guys talk about the Israeli lobby like it makes a difference; however, we don't have treaties with Israel and our entire middle eastern policy is decided through executive directives. The last significant contribution from Congress concerning the middle east was to "okay" a war note for the inevitable War on Iraq, but by then we had close to 40% deployment anyway.
The most Congress and AIPAC has done is worked out trade negotiations with Israel and maintained and maintained a sharp block on Israeli criticism. Our support for Israel doesn't have anything to do with them, it has to do with 60 year old needs for oil and security in the region.
And I'm not without sources. You can read about our involvement in '67 in "Six Days of War" by Michael Oren; Here is an Interview with Defense Secretary [url=http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-17/mcnamara2.htm... concerning our lack of involvement in the '67 War. Here from that same interview is [url=http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-17/mcnamara1.htm... once again describing our interests in the Middle East up until that point as Oil and Soviets; and our interests with Israel were keeping the Gulf of Akaber open. Here is President Carter's [url=http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/speeches/su80jec.phtml]speec... which created the Carter Doctrine. Here is the physical doctrine itself [url=http://jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/pd63.pdf]NSC-63[/url] along with National Security Advisor Brzezinski's book "Power and Principle: Memoirs of the National Security Adviser, 1977-1981." by Zbigniew Brzezinski; which is quoted in part [url=http://www.artsandmedia.net/cgi-bin/dc/newsdesk/2003/03/18_centcom_1]her... making it crystal clear our interests in the middle east were oil and keeping the soviets out. This is the [url=fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/7966.pdf]CRS report[/url] before Congress concerning how the Carter Doctrine was continued and modified with the Reagan Corrollary which categorically States the US will intervene to protect Saudi Arabia. This is policy paper from the [url=www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1024.pdf]Defense Technical Information Center[/url] discussing the evolution (specifically of CentCom) of unified US policy through the Carter Doctrine, especially as it applies to Desert Storm, Iraq I. Here is an accompanying memo from the [url=http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/dstorm/ds1.htm]Navy Department[/url] discussing their role in Iraq due to the Carter Doctrine. Here is and interview with Dr. Michael Klare (from IPS) concerning the Carter Doctrine in [url=http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/transcripts/245]Enduring Freedom, Iraq II[/url]. And this is a publication from Duke University basically outlining everything I just said as well as why the US is probably going to [url=http://www.is.rhodes.edu/Modus/95/Peak.html]abandon[/url] Israel.
That's an interesting position from a person who religiously rejects the term "Islamist"
How is it that when scholars talk about Islamism it's "Crap" and when they talk about "Zionism" it's an intellectual position? For most intents and purposes it's the same idea different religion. Global Political power movements working extra institutionally based on religious/ethnic lines for a specific religious/ethnic group.
Racist ideas can gain currency with intellectual crowds searching for that "Grain of truth," which only serves the purpose of intellectual laundering to whitewash an ideas shady origins. This is especially in the case of these middle eastern conspiracies of a "jewish controlled" US foreign policy when if you look just one post up you can read from the policy makers themselves the awful truth. It's security and oil, not Rabbi Heim.
Hitler opposed communism because it was a [url=http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr61.htm]Jewish conspiracy[/url].
I didn't reject the term islamist. He's calling the Syrian government islamists (in the view of Sunnis and Twelver Shi'ites the allawites aren't even muslims). Now that's either crap or it isn't.
Unless I misread him and he was suggesting that the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood invaded Lebanon while at the same time trying to overthrow the Syrian government. Of course this never happened.
Go on then expert, define the term Islamist.. [size=9]try and keep it short[/size].
[b][i]Round and round the Ka'bah,
Like a good Sahabah,
One step, Two step,
All the way to jannah[/i][/b]
Dave,
Israel was an ally during the cold war but since then the country is more a liability to the US than anything else. Yet Israel continues to receive massive financial and political aid from US, $3 Billion per year, and virtually a free hand to colonise the West Bank. If oil and security is still the key issue then why maintain such strong support for Israel?
The pro-Israel lobby is not a medieval conspiracy it’s a collection of interest groups, like many others, only more powerful and influential than others. It is effective at manipulating the media into portraying a rose tinted version of Israel, while intimidating those who voice concern at Israeli brutality. The charge of anti-Semitism is thrown around unfairly and offensively, to pressurise anyone who exposes Israel’s often immoral behaviour. These pressure groups have a deep impact on American society.
Such an example is seen when Walt and Mearsheimer, respected, well known professors at Harvard and Chicago universities, are smeared by having their view linked to lunatic white supremacists like Duke. They only suggested that the US role should be one of an “honest broker” not a rubberstamp for Israeli decisions. They wrote a letter of reply to their critics here.
[i]Although we are not surprised by the hostility directed at us, we are still disappointed that more attention has not been paid to the substance of the piece. The fact remains that the United States is in deep trouble in the Middle East, and it will not be able to develop effective policies if it is impossible to have a civilised discussion about the role of Israel in American foreign policy.[/i]
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n09/letters.html
I think that's a fair description.
It's true America did have a material advantage in allying with Israel after '67 and had very little to do with Israel's founding.
Pages