Sky Views: You’ve been told a deadly lie about IS

screen-shot-2017-03-02-at-17-51-36

by Sam Kiley, Sky Foreign Affairs Editor

The Western world is being suffocated by a gigantic lie. A falsehood far worse than the fantasy that Brexit will make Britain rich, or that Mexico will pay to wall itself off from Donald Trump.

It is a lie that has and continues to kill – and one endorsed by every shade of the political rainbow. It’s a porky even bitter enemies share.

The fantastic fib is this: “Islamic terror is a threat to the West.”

It isn’t.

Not even the murderous nastiness of the Belgium bombings, the Bataclan massacre, the Nice atrocities. Not the mass casualty attacks that have been headed off in Britain or even the doomsday fantasies of the so-called Islamic State’s best brains are strategic problems.

And our leaders know this.

Proof, unusually, lies in the headlines.

Last weekend Max Hill, the new independent reviewer of terror legislation, spoke to The Sunday Telegraph which echoed his view with the thundering headline “UK faces terror threat from Isis ‘not seen since IRA bombings'” as news.

And it is. But not as The Telegraph understood it. That headline was intended to frighten. To me, it was reassuring.

Now it’s not good news that today’s mostly hapless thugs high on Islamic extremist agitprop may have reached the capabilities of the highly skilled Irish Republican Army of the 1970s. That would be a bad thing, obviously.

But back then, the IRA was what the Army calls an “embuggerance”. It was not a strategic threat to the United Kingdom, it could not disrupt our way or life or shift our industrial base, nor could it cause poverty or famine.

It was a nasty organisation seeking publicity (successfully) for its republican aims. Just like so-called IS.

It suits both the leaders of the so-called Caliphate and the West to agree, though, that the danger posed by hard-line Islamist extremism is far worse than it is.

It allows the Government in Britain to introduce legislation that allows it unprecedented snooper powers on our communications. The UK now has Orwellian scales of surveillance protecting us against an enemy that is no match for conventional methods of defence.

In America, the Islamist bogey is being used as camouflage for a more subtle desire to “restore” a melting-pot nation to a homogenous Judeo-Christian culture it, arguably, never had under President Trump’s Svengali Steve Bannon.

The death cult that is Islamic State is now under heavy pressure in Iraq and Syria. Its pretentions to statehood may be destroyed this year – three years after it was spawned.

Britain has a handful of aircraft in the coalition forces ranged against it, and a small number of Special Forces soldiers on the ground. America’s contribution of 5,000 men and scores of aircraft is far bigger.

But the whole package aimed at ridding the world of the IS threat we’re being told to greatly fear simply reveals how frightened we should not be.

The US has, and had, the capacity to bomb IS infrastructure, its oil terminals and power stations, its training camps and barracks into dust in a matter of weeks.

Instead, the Caliphate is being slowly taken apart in small bite-sized chunks.

That’s a tactical response to a tactical problem. Pretending that Islamic State is a strategic threat is a lie – one can only hope that the West’s leaders don’t believe their own nonsense. Because there’s something nasty in Vladimir Putin’s woodshed.

source

Advertisements


Categories: Extremism, Life in the West, Terrorism

25 replies

  1. Yes yes yes, Islam is not a threat just look the other way nothing to see here folks move along now lol

    Like

  2. Paul wrote…

    “Millions of your fellow Americans are Muslims”

    I know scary right, millions of un exploded bombs just waiting for their jihad switch to be flipped.

    Paul wrote…
    “They are no threat to you”

    My response: Yah not now, but if they repent and have their jihad switch flipped or if they out breed the indigenous population and become “uppermost” and institute the “sharia” then you only have to look to the IS to see how that works out for non Muslims

    Paul wrote…

    “But God willing they might make a decent human being out of you. ”

    My response: Hmmm lets see, Muslims believe it is not only “decent” but granted to them by their god to have more than one wife. We call that ADULTERY.

    Muslims believe that it is granted to them by god to marry and have sex with 9 year old girls, we call that PEDOPHILIA.

    Muslims believe that they are the best of creatures and every one who is not a Muslim is the worst of creatures. We call that prideful religious fascism

    Muslims believe it is not only acceptable but a right granted to them by their god to stone adulterous to death. We call that barbaric.

    Muslims believe it is a right granted to them by their god to chop off the limbs of thieves. We call that not only barbaric but cruel and unusual punishment.

    I could go on but we would be here for a long while.

    Muslims deny the Son of God, denying the father, they also deny the death and resurrection of Christ, and ultimately that in itself is what makes Islam repulsive.

    Like

  3. If only we were all white. Then American Lives Matter would have shown greater tolerance for his fellow American Muslims.

    Like

    • Wow the racism that is Islam really shines forth in you. But sadly what you said is untrue, no matter what color Islam is it is still repulsive for just some of TRUE things I mentioned above.

      Notice neither you or Paul has denied anything I said was true.

      Like

    • Ironic seeing a guy who dehumanizes Muslims cry about racism.

      Like

    • Muslims are a race? Didn’t know that, and when have I dehumanized Muslims or anyone?

      Like

    • American Lives Matter: when have I dehumanized Muslims or anyone?

      You’re a bigger idiot than I thought.

      Like

    • Sooo you can’t point to a single case where I “dehumanized Muslims” or anyone and you can not point to anything I have said that was un true. The only thing you can do is race bait, and call me an idiot.

      Ok then but at least I’m not a Muslim 🙂

      Like

    • Here’s a guy who concludes his comment with an insinuation that being an idiot is better than being a Muslim and he still wonders where he has dehumanized Muslims. What an idiot!

      Like

    • Kmak wrote…

      “being an idiot is better than being a Muslim and he still wonders where he has dehumanized Muslims. ”

      So then you calling me an idiot is your effort to dehumanize kuffar or idiots?

      Like

    • Kmak (trained economist) where did u go? Why the radio silence?

      Funny you do nothing but call kuffar “Pieces of Sh*t”, and “idiots”, and you accuse me of “dehumanizing Muslims” lol

      Like

    • I only called you a piece of sh’it, not every non-Muslim in the world. Man, you really are a dumb, piece of sh’it.

      Like

    • thats enough dude. Thanks.

      Like

  4. ALM:

    “Muslims believe it is not only “decent” but granted to them by their god to have more than one wife. We call that ADULTERY.”

    Response:

    So, the Old Testament Prophets (Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Ezra, Hosea, Saul, David etc) committed adultery and were adulterers for marrying more than one wife! Yet, you believe that they were Prophets of God!

    ALM:

    “Muslims believe that it is granted to them by god to marry and have sex with 9 year old girls, we call that PEDOPHILIA.”

    Response:

    Islam nowhere says this! This is called deliberate lie!

    Marriage of prepubescent is not sanctioned in Islam. Therefore, there is no pedophilia in Islam regardless of how many times you biased people claim it.

    And then your Bible nowhere forbids pedophilia!

    ALM:

    “Muslims believe that they are the best of creatures and every one who is not a Muslim is the worst of creatures. We call that prideful religious fascism”

    Response:

    Muslims believe that they are the best creatures ‘spiritually’ not carnally. What do Christians believe themselves to be spiritually – worse than unbelievers or equal to them spiritually? 😂

    ALM:

    Muslims believe it is not only acceptable but a right granted to them by their god to stone adulterous to death. We call that barbaric.

    Response:

    The God of the Old Testament ordered adulterers to be stoned (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 etc). So you are in effect describing the Old Testament God as barbaric when He ordered this! So, actually you must either be an atheist or marcionite!

    Like

    • Aliyu wrote…

      So, the Old Testament Prophets (Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Ezra, Hosea, Saul, David etc) committed adultery and were adulterers for marrying more than one wife! Yet, you believe that they were Prophets of God!

      Short answer some of them did Yes, but having more than one wife was not how it was from the beginning, and not how it is supposed to be as Christ himself said. “This is why a man will leave his fathers house and be united with his WIFE”.

      Second we do not follow the Prophets as an example of morality, instead we follow what the prophets taught and Christ who is the perfect moral example becasue he is the GOD-man.

      Aliyu wrote…
      Islam nowhere says this! This is called deliberate lie!

      Marriage of prepubescent is not sanctioned in Islam. Therefore, there is no pedophilia in Islam regardless of how many times you biased people claim it.

      And then your Bible nowhere forbids pedophilia!

      My response: The only one who is lying is you either willfully or ignorantly but you are lying to yourself. Let me break it down for you.
      1. Your perfect moral example is Mohamed, it is a GOOD thing to emulate him in everything from how you sleep to how you pee.
      2. Your moral example who you are to emulate married Aisha when she was six and had sex with her when she was 9. Aisha’s own words in multiple SAHI Hadeeth. You can do the Ishnad shuffle all you want but a lot of Muslims in Muslim countries follow Mohameds example in this day and age and do marry and have sex with girls as young as 9. Thats a FACT JACK.

      Aliyu wrote…
      “”Muslims believe that they are the best creatures ‘spiritually’ not carnally. What do Christians believe themselves to be spiritually – worse than unbelievers or equal to them spiritually? ”

      This is a good question and a great point. As far as your remark in spiritually that is just playing semantics, But what Christians believe is that we are to SERVE and not be served. We believe that we are wretched sinners and any “good deeds”( which Muslims seem so proud of), are nothing more than FILTHY RAGS to God. We believe that we are spiritually broken and can not fix ourselves or do anything on our own to fix are broken sinful selves. We believe we are all sinners in capable of righieousness apart from Christ who took our sins and gave us his righteousness before God.

      Aliyu wrote…

      “The God of the Old Testament ordered adulterers to be stoned (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 etc). So you are in effect describing the Old Testament God as barbaric when He ordered this! So, actually you must either be an atheist or marcionite!”

      My response: Yes it was BARBARIC because it was BARBARIC Times 3000 years ago. We don’t live 3000 years ago, we don’t live 2000 years ago, we don’t live 1000 years ago, we don’t live 1400 years ago, we live in the 21st century. But more importantly we live under the NEW Covenant not the OLD Covenant, and unlike Muslims who want to live in 7th century Arabia or first century Judea, or 3rd Century BC Anywhere

      Like

  5. ALM,

    I asked, in response to your claim above, that if the Partriachs and Prophets of God were adulterers for having more than one wife each? You then responded thus:

    “Short answer some of them did Yes.. ”

    Response:

    Did what?! Adultery?! So, you believe that these partriachs and prophets were adulterers?

    You claimed that having more than one wife is adultery, and the partriachs and prophets had more than one wife each!

    You claim:

    “…but having more than one wife was not how it was from the beginning, and not how it is supposed to be as Christ himself said. “This is why a man will leave his fathers house and be united with his WIFE”.

    Response:

    Even if Christ actually uttered these words (which is doubtful), the words never forbid polygamy.

    How does the clause “man will leave his ” mean that polygamy was ruled out from the beginning?

    To be “one flesh” is obviously not literal – does not mean that they are one body, one individual. It is only figurative. It only refers to the relationship. Thus, a polygamous man can be “one flesh” with each of his wives.

    1 Corinthians 6:16 reveals that a man can be “one flesh” even with an harlot. As even a married man, therefore, can become “one flesh” with an harlot, that proves that a married man can indeed be “one flesh” with more than one woman, without negating his being “one flesh” with his wife. As that is so even with a married man with an harlot, it is thus just as equally true regarding a man being “one flesh” with more than one wife.

    Secondly, how comes that you people that came thousands of years after Moses could claim to know the Torah you believed to have been written by Moses better than Moses himself! Prophet Moses himself never believed that the statement that man shall leave his parents and cleave to his wife to be “one flesh” meant monogamy. This was never the interpretation of this verse according to Moses as per his practical marriage life which was polygamous (Exodus 18:1-6, Numbers 12:1).

    Like

  6. ALM:

    “Second we do not follow the Prophets as an example of morality, instead we follow what the prophets taught and Christ who is the perfect moral example becasue he is the GOD-man.”

    Response:

    This shows that you regard God’s prophets as sinners that led sinful lives unworthy of emulation!

    Prophets were specially chosen by God as spiritual and moral guides. If they hadn’t taught by example, they would never have been special moral guides. Why should thier marriage lives be written in the scriptures – profitable for nothing?

    “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” (2 Timothy 3:16)

    Secondly, how could god-man (self-contradictory term like married-bachelor) be the role model of humans?!

    Thirdly, whether you emulated the Prophets or not, this is not an answer to the question. The question is: were the prophets and the partriachs adulterers for marrying more than one wife each? Remember, you claimed that marrying more than one wife is adultery!

    ALM:

    “Your moral example who you are to emulate married Aisha when she was six and had sex with her when she was 9. Aisha’s own words in multiple SAHI Hadeeth. You can do the Ishnad shuffle all you want but a lot of Muslims in Muslim countries follow Mohameds example in this day and age and do marry and have sex with girls as young as 9. Thats a FACT JACK.”

    Response:

    As already pointed out, the Prophet effected marriage with Aisha only when she reached puberty at 9. And even science, as well as history, proves that some females reached normal puberty at 9 and even before. You people regarded this fact and fixate on the numeral 9 only.

    The next fact is that the Prophet didn’t initiate the whole thing – it was suggested to him for a grand purpose, which you people always disregard. The purpose of that marriage should always be regarded if only you are sincere and just in your criticism. The marriage had it’s purpose primarily for that nascent Muslim community – the Prophet was cementing social and political ties for the socio-political development of the nascent Muslim community.

    So, for anyone to emulate this must fulfil the conditions:

    1. Not all females reach puberty at 9. So, she must reached normal puberty at 9 just as Aisha during the time of the Prophet.

    2. The marriage must be for the same purpose for which the Prophet married her.

    If any of these conditions is not met, it is not in emulation of the Prophet. So, pls, stop asking us to just marry any female at 9, whether she reached adulthood then or not, and when the purpose that made the Prophet then did it is practically non-existent.

    Like

  7. ALM,

    In response to my question on what Christians regard themselves to be spiritually compared to unbelievers (whether they regard themselves spiritually better than unbelievers or not), you responded:

    “But what Christians believe is that we are to SERVE and not be served.”

    Response:

    This doesn’t answer the question. One that is better spiritually and carnally can serve others.

    ALM:

    You continued..
    “We believe that we are wretched sinners and any “good deeds”( which Muslims seem so proud of), are nothing more than FILTHY RAGS to God. We believe that we are spiritually broken and can not fix ourselves or do anything on our own to fix are broken sinful selves. We believe we are all sinners in capable of righieousness apart from Christ who took our sins and gave us his righteousness before God.”

    Response:

    Does this mean that you pessimistically regard yourselves as equal to the unbelievers even after you were supposedly guided?

    Still, are Christians better than unbelievers or as worse as unbelievers?

    ALM:

    When asked you if the Old Testament god was barbaric to have ordered for stoning of adulterers – in response to your claim that stoning of adulterers is barbaric -, you responded:

    “My response: Yes it was BARBARIC because it was BARBARIC Times 3000 years ago. We don’t live 3000 years ago, we don’t live 2000 years ago, we don’t live 1000 years ago, we don’t live 1400 years ago, we live in the 21st century.”

    Response:

    Why should a morally good god gave “barbaric laws” to people 3000 years ago just because the people then were allegedly barbaric? Why didn’t He just give them morally good and righteous laws even if it were true that they were barbaric? The Psalmist says that all His righteous laws are good and everlasting!

    Was He barbaric like them? If He gave barbaric laws, then He is guilty of being barbaric Himself!

    Then why do you think that anything and old as thousands of years ago must be barbaric and needed to be changed now? There are many things inherited from the past that are not changed for being barbaric now. The democracy, which is purely secular and not Christian, was there as early as 6 century BC originated by pagans. Since it is that old, it must be barbaric in your logic!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: