Zionism or Islam which isthe bigger threat
#31
Zionism is just the political wing of ciaphas so I assert it's been around since the crucifixion
it was not mohammadens that obliterated Europe in ww1 and 2 it was mrxist socialism adopted by Germans and Russian bolshivism
as to Islam the threat of Zionism is greater is because as I said above Zionist have no problem promoting porn, femanism, liberalism in all it's stripes, and it is not Islam that has infiltrated the human element of the church and the highest elements of American government and cultural institutions. The purpose of the thread is to show that American military might against Islam is against the wrong enemy, Zion and isreal is a more dangerous threat because they proclaim us friends while actually cutting our throats.
Reply
#32
voxpopulisuxx Wrote:And forget not that Antichrist has no use for Islam it is to willing to die for the faith (false faith it is)
Zion cannot rule the world for Antichrist with billions of zealot islamists around who suppress feminism homosexualism pornography alcohol I mean zionists can't do their Marxist magic under those conditions.

It follows that if Zionism is to be a credible vehicle for Antichrist it would have to break the power of Islam.

If a superpower like the USA can't subdue the Islamic world, how could little Israel manage it?  (Short of nuking Mecca.)
Reply
#33
(02-26-2010, 06:12 PM)Cambrensis Wrote:
voxpopulisuxx Wrote:And forget not that Antichrist has no use for Islam it is to willing to die for the faith (false faith it is)
Zion cannot rule the world for Antichrist with billions of zealot islamists around who suppress feminism homosexualism pornography alcohol I mean zionists can't do their Marxist magic under those conditions.

It follows that if Zionism is to be a credible vehicle for Antichrist it would have to break the power of Islam.

If a superpower like the USA can't subdue the Islamic world, how could little Israel manage it?  (Short of nuking Mecca.)
If we subdue anything it would be both, but America could find reprouchmand with Most of the ME Islamist countrys, However Isreal would never stand by and let the USA abandon its(zions) agenda, they would start a war first (and have)
Reply
#34
voxpopulisuxx Wrote:Isreal would never stand by and let the USA abandon its(zions) agenda, they would start a war first (and have)

Yes but for Zionism to be the basis of Antichrist's global rule it would have to be a winnable war. 
Reply
#35
(02-26-2010, 07:06 PM)Cambrensis Wrote:
voxpopulisuxx Wrote:Isreal would never stand by and let the USA abandon its(zions) agenda, they would start a war first (and have)

Yes but for Zionism to be the basis of Antichrist's global rule it would have to be a winnable war. 
If the USA and Isreal wanted to they could make green glass out of the entire region.
As to defeating Islam as a religious force in the way of Anti Christs agenda, your right, it might be "easier" to defeat the zionists. But the Threat to America (not ISlam) is that by standing by zion she brings upon her the curse of total war. If the USA stood with all nations without showing favoritism, especially to Isreal, the Islamic Nations would not wage war on the USA. Atl least not with as much support as the Islamic countries have now amongst their own.
Fact is, without the USA Isreal is toast, and everyone knows it, thats what makes zion the bigger threat.
Reply
#36
(02-26-2010, 03:22 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Though I won't hold my breath. Mohamadansim also isn't a sole amarican plm. Unless anamchara is an anarchist amarican nationalist he should at least cede that point.
Waiting
LoL

 
Reply
#37
(02-26-2010, 09:04 PM)anamchara Wrote:
(02-26-2010, 03:22 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Though I won't hold my breath. Mohamadansim also isn't a sole amarican plm. Unless anamchara is an anarchist amarican nationalist he should at least cede that point.
Waiting
LoL

Sorry to keep you waiting.  I chimed in at lunch and I had to go back to work after that.  What does "sole amarican plm" mean?  "Sole American problem"?

I never said Mohammedism isn't a problem or the only American problem or solely an American problem.  I just said it was less of a problem--to Americans and the rest of the world--than is U.S. imperialism.  If Mohammedism is the One Implacable Enemy With Whom No Compromise is Possible, why did the U.S. Government forge an alliance with radical Islam in the 1980s?  I'd say it's because the U.S. Government and its pals in the military-industrial complex are always looking for a reason to wage war, and not because of any unique monstrosity attaching to the Communists or Mohammedans or anybody else.   

Yes, I am familiar with Charles Martel and Tours in 730 A.D. and the Reconquista and the Crusades and the Ottoman Turks and Vienna in 1683.  But since the days of the Industrial Revolution,  it seems the Muslims have been mostly on the receiving end of imperialism--and not just from the Americans, but the British, French and even Italians. 

I am an American.  I'm not a nationalist, but I'm even less of an internationalist.  I am an anarchist, but that's only because I believe precepts like "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and "Thou Shalt Not Steal" should apply to the State.  That's all.  It's not any more complicated than that.   But even if I were a limited-government American nationalist, I would strongly recommend the U.S. pursue a policy of non-intervention.  After all, it's what the Founding Fathers (God bless their WASP-deist hearts!) recommended.           
Reply
#38
(02-26-2010, 09:06 PM)anamchara Wrote:
(02-26-2010, 09:04 PM)anamchara Wrote:
(02-26-2010, 03:22 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Though I won't hold my breath. Mohamadansim also isn't a sole amarican plm. Unless anamchara is an anarchist amarican nationalist he should at least cede that point.
Waiting
LoL

Sorry to keep you waiting.  I chimed in at lunch and I had to go back to work after that.  What does "sole amarican plm" mean?  "Sole American problem"?

I never said Mohammedism isn't a problem or the only American problem or solely an American problem.  I just said it was less of a problem--to Americans and the rest of the world--than is U.S. imperialism.  If Mohammedism is the One Implacable Enemy With Whom No Compromise is Possible, why did the U.S. Government forge an alliance with radical Islam in the 1980s?  I'd say it's because the U.S. Government and its pals in the military-industrial complex are always looking for a reason to wage war, and not because of any unique monstrosity attaching to the Communists or Mohammedans or anybody else.   

Yes, I am familiar with Charles Martel and Tours in 730 A.D. and the Reconquista and the Crusades and the Ottoman Turks and Vienna in 1683.  But since the days of the Industrial Revolution,  it seems the Muslims have been mostly on the receiving end of imperialism--and not just from the Americans, but the British, French and even Italians. 

I am an American.  I'm not a nationalist, but I'm even less of an internationalist.  I am an anarchist, but that's only because I believe precepts like "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and "Thou Shalt Not Steal" should apply to the State.  That's all.  It's not any more complicated than that.   But even if I were a limited-government American nationalist, I would strongly recommend the U.S. pursue a policy of non-intervention.  After all, it's what the Founding Fathers (God bless their WASP-deist hearts!) recommended.           
here here
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)