Here's an article by Robert Morley: "Lies About Islam and Destroying America From Within". Here Morley discusses a statement by President Obama and accuses him of telling a lie.
This is a lie. Islam was not woven into the fabric of the United States anywhere near its founding. The first mosque in America wasn’t even built until 1915—after the commencement of World War I, about 140 years after the nation was founded, 308 years after the colony at Jamestown was established.Morley then brings up a war over two hundred years ago in Northern Africa to insinuate that there is something inherently sinister about Muslims. What a narrow view of world events. To dredge up historical events such as this to vilify innocent people alive today is not right.
Sure, there may have been some Muslims who traveled to America during those early years, but to suggest they had a major role in shaping America is a lie. Even today, only 0.6 percent of the population is Muslim.
In reality, the major contribution of Muslims to America has been profoundly negative.
Morley then accuses many of those particupating in the Summit on Countering Violent Extremism of being extremists.
But there is another, far more dangerous reason the White House refuses to confront radical Islam.
Consider the Summit on Countering Violent Extremism hosted by President Obama. There were so many radical, hateful anti-Americans present that it should have been called the Summit for Legitimizing and Empowering Violent Extremists.But Morley's still not finished. He then insinuates that President Obama is a traitor deliberately leading America to catastrophe.
President Obama said the conference would build upon his strategy of “Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States.” Problem is that many of these local partners are the extremists.
So why is the president so set on working with and even empowering the very people who want to destroy America and Western civilization in general? Why won’t the president label radical Islam for the threat that it is? Why is he perpetuating lies about America’s history with Islam? Is he really that naive, or is there an agenda at work behind the scenes that most people don’t recognize?In that booklet Gerald Flurry accuses President Obama of being "another Antiochus", an Antichrist like figure he coined, used by Satan to lead America into its fall.
To understand why President Obama seems to side with America’s enemies, read America Under Attack.
What madness.
Callum Wood has an article entitled "Could America Catch Iran Building Nuclear Weapons?" In it Wood recounted how India, Pakistan and North Korea made nuclear weapons in order to prophesy that Iran "will ... go for the bomb."
Like India, Pakistan and North Korea before it, Iran is a nation with nuclear ambitions. Whether it claims those ambitions are peaceful or not, the end result will be the same. Iran’s nuclear program will produce the bomb. The groundwork has been laid. It is just a matter of when Iran will choose to go for the bomb. When that day comes, history proves that the U.S. will be powerless to stop it.Anthony Chibarirwe has an article entitled "Is Anything Worse Then the Islamic State?" Here he insists that Iran is the real threat, obviously frustrated that people are more worried about Abu Bakr al Baghdadi's lackeys.
(Also note the way this article always refer to the murderers and usurpers led by Abu Bakr al Baghdadi by the name they wish to call themselves. They want other people to call them the "Islamic State"? Why give them what they want?)
Looks can be deceiving. That’s true even without any deliberate effort to misrepresent anything. It’s especially true after applying thousands of dollars’ worth of cosmetic procedures on those looks, which are then propagandized in crystal-clear HD on social media, as is the case with the Islamic State. ...Obviously PCG's leaders are frustrated that events outside of PCG's information bubble refuse to proceed the way they insist it will. The world outside of PCG is so much more concerned about Abu Bakr al Baghdadi's lackeys then Iran.
The Islamic State’s primary use of deceit is to make itself appear more menacing than it actually is. Unfortunately, it’s working well. On the other hand, Iran’s primary purpose for deception is to appear less menacing than it actually is. That too, is working well, unfortunately. Through that strategy, Iran could acquire weapons far more terrifying than the Islamic State’s knives, tanks and rockets.
And even worse Wood also had an article ("Lampedusa and the Islamic State's War on Rome") that slurs the immigrants trying to reach Italy by sea as infiltrators sympathetic to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi's lackeys. So many of those vulnerable people have died at sea as Wood himself acknowledges in the article but nevertheless he presents those vulnerable and deprived people as a threat and he associates them with Abu Bakr al Baghdadi's lackeys.
Italy’s immigration crisis heightens the risk of terrorist attacks on the Continent. ...Such wild and irresponsible rhetoric vilifying so many people is not good. No good can come from this. It is shameful that PCG should devote so much to vilify innocent people just because they happen to be Muslim.
As Italy’s southernmost territory, the small island of Lampedusa has become the front line in the Islamic State’s war on Rome. ...
With so many immigrants crossing to Italy, the likelihood is high that radicals are slipping into mainland Europe unnoticed. ...
The opportunity for terrorists to reach the heart of Italy is a real and present danger. And the Islamic State has no qualms about letting the world know its intentions to carry out such an attack.
Islamic State leader Abu Bakar al-Baghdadi has made numerous threats to wage a war against Rome. In video and audio recordings, he calls on all Muslims to return to their homeland, from where they can launch their offensive against “the nation of the cross.”...
Radical Islam is directly threatening the Catholic Church and Europe today in a way unseen since [the ninth century.] The blood of the Catholic Church’s “brothers” in Egypt and Libya is being spilled into the Mediterranean again today. How long before it reaches Lampedusa or further?
Whatever happens next in Libya, the nation’s potential as a deadly backdoor into Europe has been exposed. Italy and the Vatican are now dealing with the dangers posed by radical Islam. Don’t expect Europe to allow that back door to remain open much longer.
The most highly visible problem for peaceful Muslims is their large, high profile, disruptive and destructive extremist arm, the one claiming to be prosecuting an international jihad. Personally, I have counted amongst my friends some of the peaceful Muslims, one of whom uses the phrase "Islamic fundamentalists" to describe the imperialists. However, there is a sense that Muslim immigrants receive preferential treatment prevalent in the Christian community, because special prayer areas are set up in public schools, while Christians have been prevented from having prayer prior to athletic contests, or from the allowance of Christian orientated clubs on public school grounds.
ReplyDeleteIn a sense, this whole picture conforms to the Orwellian model presented in "1984", in which the Western nations had a perpetual need for some powerful enemy to be fighting, almost as a prerequisite for strength and survival. And, certainly it is easy to compare the present beheadings, hostile jihadist rhetoric, and territorial conquests with the violence directed towards Jews by radical socialists in the World War II era, and the fall of entire nations such as France.
What amazes me is the Armstrongist perspective on these events. PCG makes a direct correlation between Muslim tenets and doctrines and the activities of the most commited, the extreme jihadists. However, they don't recognize that same correlation between the so called restored truths of Herbert W. Armstrong and their own extremist behavior, ie people dying without medical attention, children being abused, financial abuse of members, families torn apart, and fear mongering based on prophecies directed towards misidentified ethnic groups. Armstrongism, in "Philadelphian" form is cut from the same radical cloth as Islamofascism. Many of us fear that if there ever is a fleeing to a place of safety, all freedom of speech or dissent would be prohibited, and very possibly, Old Testament stonings would be reinstituted in Petra or wherever.
I also find it curious that a group which does not believe in building or owning local church buildings would look to the presence of mosques as a measure of Muslim influence.
I am certain that the perception of certain groups as being threats and enemies will continue to come and go. We know that there is no way these groups, be they Nazis, Communists, or Muslims, will bring about the fulfillment of the Armstrong prophecy mold because that mold is based on a provably false theory called British Israelism. However, Armstrongism is a major contributor to the pool of paranoia, and fear rhetoric as opposed to advocator of participating in any sort of resolution. Resolution would defeat HWA's main "hook", the much anticipated apocalypse.
BB
It is so true that PCG is awfully selective about things. When someone they do not like does the smallest thing wrong which conforms to the dogma they hysterically denounce it to the heavens. But not the slightest trace of embarrassment about how they themselves fail to live up to the ideals they impose on others.
ReplyDeleteFor instance recently they have been fear mongering about immigrants into America. This is hypocritical considering how many of PCG's leaders are from outside the United States (Ron Fraser, Brad MacDonald, Robert Morley, etc).