Posted by CarlosSantos (+881) 5 years ago
This is a fairly brilliant explanation of the Syrian conflict for those who may not fully understand what's happening.




For a moment, consider this is the land you call home. Consider your innocent family and children fleeing this place with no where to seek refuge. Just for a moment, put yourself in the place of these people with the understanding of what's really happening.
Top
+2
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
The protesters were in the streets and not in the fields? Guess George Soros pays better!

This is only a side issue to the real issue, which is the south pars. Getting a couple of orthodox groups that are both fanatical about the old ways "Orthodox Christianity of Russia" and "orthodoxical Islam" is a great move for the atheist progressives. Russia is merely being made busy with wars so that they have not the resources nor the capital, to explore the artic or continue increasing the supply to Europe. These are the pipeline wars plain and simple, special interest such as the large oil companies have created an environment that will paint the oil rich nations as an enemy simply because they can now see peek oil. they NATO then remove the Russian natural gas from Europe while cranking up supply from the Qatar region of natural gas called the south pars.
Also these Syrian refugees are fleeing with money they have been paid by turkey and Saudi Arabia for their looted oil supplies. They are then using the money to start jihadi groups in their new nation of mostly Germany. Germany did agree to let Russia run a new pipeline through their country, so maybe this 'targeted migration crisis' is payback.
Top
-2
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
Top
-3
Posted by CarlosSantos (+881) 5 years ago
Reply to Brandy Allen (#362696)
Brandy Allen wrote:
Getting a couple of orthodox groups that are both fanatical about the old ways "Orthodox Christianity of Russia" and "orthodoxical Islam" is a great move for the atheist progressives.


Am I gathering that you are claiming this is some sort of setup by "Atheist Progressives"?

In what way was this a "move" for the "Atheist Progressives"?

You could not make less sense.
Top
+2
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
No way, the atheist progressives couldn't get all of their different ideals to culminate in an agreed upon "social order" unless it be called "chaos". At the heart of the progressive movement is disarray, and always will be, "too many opposing ideals". And once the "brown shirts" figure out that they were the ultimate loud mouthed pawn in that movement, and next in line to be eradicated, the progressive movement will disintegrate into violence.
They "social progressives" are simply the "short term" benefactor of the policies that have been agreed upon for the long term sustainability of the Nato alliance and EU energy independence. They will have a few years to say I told you so before that right goes to ultra conservatives.

America is obviously leading from behind as Obama said, and doing well so far, but the Saudis and Turkish allies we have need to step up. They need to tell their "moderate factions" you know, the ones we arm (Al Nusra), to stop getting caught on camera saying they are Islamic extremist and brothers to the ISIS terrorist. They "turkey and Saudi" needs to support isis's overthrow of Assad with air support, arms, and media support to save them from their own mouths and ideals. This all needs to happen so that the largest natural gas deposit on the planet in Qatar can flow cheaply to the EU and further destabilize Russia.


As opposed to the bricks nations which are plotting a clear and precise course for their energy futures, without the covertness and secret pacts and wars. Bricks and NATO are fighting for the same resources and regions to run pipelines. The pipeline wars have been playing out for many years now, and are going to lead the Muslims against the Christians world wide. It is worth noting that the majority of Muslims identify Christians by a different means than do the progressives.


Now this is all I am saying, and this policy of regional destabilization will bring a nuke to Manhattan. Do these people really think Russia will give up national sovereignty and join NATO. No they will bomb Nato and hack and anything else they can do to stay in control. Obama has been right on many things, and he also said his biggest fear is a nuke going off in Manhattan.
Top
-3
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
And the atheist progressives benefit by the opposing religious orthodoxical ideals being sidelined with each others attention, while their disgusting conquest will be displayed for all to see "24hr media".
They "atheist" can flourish in this time. The blood letting over oil will discourage people from the Christianity, which is already in decline. Even though it wasn't Christian vs. Islam, it was corporations of the west vs. the bricks block of influence in the emerging economies, and who can get their oil to market.

Islam will be seen as evil as well, because of the massive amounts of religious blood on their hands. This will give way to the worship of something new, maybe Anti-Christ?


I could break this down in a more in-depth piece, but I think most can grasp this concept. If one of my enemies can weaken my other enemy, I become twice as strong. Atheist benefit from this blood letting, as do the western oil companies whom worship at the alter of the petrol dollar.
Top
-3
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17224) 5 years ago
Damn. The atheist progressives are the root of all evil, not ISIS.

How could I have been so stupid?
Top
+5
-1
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
Don't bare false witness to my words. I said that atheist and progressives will benefit more than anyone else from a Christian / Islamic conflict on a large scale.


And you don't have to be stupid any more, I give tutoring classes now.
Top
+1
-5
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14943) 5 years ago
The 1.2BA Brandied Apple saith:
And the atheist progressives benefit by the opposing religious orthodoxical ideals being sidelined with each others attention, while their disgusting conquest will be displayed for all to see "24hr media".
They "atheist" can flourish in this time. The blood letting over oil will discourage people from the Christianity, which is already in decline. Even though it wasn't Christian vs. Islam, it was corporations of the west vs. the bricks block of influence in the emerging economies, and who can get their oil to market.

Islam will be seen as evil as well, because of the massive amounts of religious blood on their hands. This will give way to the worship of something new, maybe Anti-Christ? 


I could break this down in a more in-depth piece, but I think most can grasp this concept. If one of my enemies can weaken my other enemy, I become twice as strong. Atheist benefit from this blood letting, as do the western oil companies whom worship at the alter of the petrol dollar.


1. There is no "Anti-Christ". The bible NEVER talks about an Anti-Christ as a single person. And the word is used only in 1 John. It is a meaningless word, confined to a letter written 90+ years after Jesus was here. It's a word kind of like your "atheist progrssive" notion, non-sensical.

2. There does NOT need to be an "Armageddon". There might be one because there are so many trigger-happy people in the world begging for such an event. But it doesn't have to happen. We could, (and IMO should) simply get the hell out of the middle east. Our current whack-a-mole "strategy" isn't working. Removing ourselves from that region would go a long way to ratchet down the rhethoric. Peace might actually break out. And not electing the likes of Teddyhawk Cruz missile or Mr. Chump, the carnival barker, will also help avoid a war that doesn't need to happen. 

3. There really isn't an "atheist progressive" classs. Your  bigoted notion that requires people be broken into various classes in conflict with each other is actually much of the problem in this country. You should climb down off of this particular cross. We need the wood for other fires.

4. If you offer a sacrifice on a sacred table it's an A-L-T-A-R, not and alter which is means to change or cause to change in character or composition, typically in a comparatively small but significant way.
Top
+5
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
Dan saith:

Islam will be seen as evil as well, as will Christianity, because of the massive amounts of religious blood on their hands if this conflict grows. This will give way to the worship of something new, maybe Anti-Christ.

they will run to and grasp at something new. I said maybe anti-Christ ideology. It is odd that the path of cause and effect of our pipeline wars could actually turn people off by blaming religion rather than oil and greed. I never said there is an actual anti-chirst person that will lead the masses from god. It may be an ideal or progressive path that takes the people away from God.
Top
-4
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17224) 5 years ago
Top
+6
-1
Posted by CarlosSantos (+881) 5 years ago
You can't blame Atheists for the radical murderous actions of the fundamentally religious in the name of their God.

It's just nonsensical.

Just because you've decided that Atheists are "evil" doesn't mean they are to blame for this in ANY way. You are claiming that these non-theists are going to benefit from this religious war. In what way? In what way do people who have a faith you don't agree with going to benefit from the slaughtering of human lives.

And... just for the record, what exactly is wrong with being an Atheist?

If my memory serves me well, and it typically does, FAR more devastation, death and destruction has been caused in the name of someone's "GOD" than has ever been done by someone without the faith in a higher power.

So again, please fill me in why these Atheists are so evil?
Top
+6
Posted by Bob Netherton III (+2771) 5 years ago
Brandy (or whoever is posting under the name) is creeping towards Cactus Plains territory.
Top
+6
-1
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9176) 5 years ago
creeping galloping
Top
+3
-1
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
Carlos Danger

I said atheist will be the major benefactor to the Islamic/ Christian conflict. I stand by that assertation.

I find it encouraging that I have reached the same end, although independently, as Albert Pike. But It is disheartening that we will probably both be proven correct. It also appears that Hal Lindsey is beginning to trumpet this idea as well. I will wait for you "brown shirts" to catch up over the next year while this conflict worsens and monotheistic religions fall subsequently, giving rise to luciferian doctrine.

And don't bare false witness once again "Carlos" I never said the atheist were evil, just the main benefactor of what people will see as evil "Christians and islamist" for their atrocities against one another, which is now starting. Don't put words in someone else's mouth simply because you can not debate their ideas. You will come around kid, a few more of the right books, and you will be there.

WELCOME TO THE PIPELINE WARS!!!!! disguised as a holy war.

[Edited by Brandy Allen (11/19/2015 12:13:07 PM)]

[Edited by Brandy Allen (11/19/2015 12:32:25 PM)]

[Edited by Brandy Allen (11/19/2015 12:34:15 PM)]
Top
-4
Posted by CarlosSantos (+881) 5 years ago
Your delusions of grandeur are audacious.

I still cannot possibly fathom a benefit to any Atheists from these conflicts.

However, lets pretend there is some benefit. If you only mention that the Atheists will benefit from these holy wars, and you do not consider Atheists "evil"... What is the problem with them benefiting?

Let's just for a moment pretend that suddenly a huge number of people view religion as "evil" as you seem to think is going to happen - and the population of non-theists increases.

Why is that a problem?

You seem to continually answer questions with repetition of previous statements, essentially telling me - you either don't have one or you know that the answer you have is ill-conceived.

I suggest you improve your argument rather than informing me I need to read the "right books"
Top
+2
Posted by CarlosSantos (+881) 5 years ago
...and your "brown shirts" reference is not only ill-placed and misdirected, but it completely undermines any credibility of your argument (if there were to be any).

Those who don't have answers use insults and derogation to misdirect.
Top
+3
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
"Brown shirts" is only derogatory if its true. So if it don't apply let it go, if it does, like or comment. HAHA.

And don't mistake my words, progressives are the modern "brown shirts" equivalent. And remember how the Germany treated them after using them. I suspect the new American socialist regime will do the same to these so called revolutionaries "brown shirts" that we call progressives. They are on the wrong side of history, and will be ultimately remembered as traitors to their homeland of origin.

And I am not in contradiction to anything I have said. This is a war for oil and future sustainability of the EU. It is being perpetuated by the Saudis whom need the land for their pipeline and NATO, whom needs a strong independent EU minus Russia of course. As soon as they "Saudi" can, the pipeline will go to Europe, and do away with Russian dependence. This is a race to get gas to Europe, who will it be, Russia with the Iranians and Chinese, or NATO with the Saudis? If it is Russia and Iran, this would deal a hefty right hook to the petro dollar. If it is Nato and the Saudis, it would cripple Russia, and hurt china and cause a world war.
This policy of putting Iran vs Saudi isn't a just war, and it could lead to the Sunnis taking over. In this case the pipeline would be the first project that they would undertake. This would prove the pipeline wars are real and the main factor to the destabilization of the middle east in not just our day, but throughout much of modern history. A race to resources!
Top
-2
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
Why is that a problem?

You seem to continually answer questions with repetition of previous statements, essentially telling me - you either don't have one or you know that the answer you have is ill-conceived.


Ok Carlos, let me restate again, I never said I had a problem with the non-theistic taking over. Why you want a biased response is beyond me. Wait, no its not. But I will fly above for now. I am unattached to your biased ideology = can't touch this.

I don't care who wins, my ticket is already punched. but I will point out facts, this is a resource war mascaraing as a holy war.

That means that the religious aspects that these islamist have, would not exist, if a biased parties didn't step in and tell them its a jihad. This is what Iran and Saudi Arabia are telling their people.
It is not a 3rd generational split that still fuels the Sunni vs. Shia conflict, it is oil and more importantly it is the transmission of said oil.
Top
-3
Posted by CarlosSantos (+881) 5 years ago
Not surprisingly, you've dodged the question yet again and just continue to spew the same rhetoric.

"Pipeline, oil, EU, Middle East..."

Answer a question about why I fear an increased Atheist population?

In the words of satirical George Bush:


"Not gonna do it!"



When repetition is all one is capable of, it's usually a sign of a weak "agenda"

I wish you the best in your never-ending quest to save Christianity from the Atheists Progressives who will doom our society.

Because religion has really done wonders in the world...
Top
+2
Posted by CarlosSantos (+881) 5 years ago
If you have no problem with non-theists, why bring them up at all.

They have absolutely NOTHING to do with this conflict.

It's not a matter of wanting a biased answer.

It's a matter of wanting AN answer.


Pretend if you must, but your previous words are far more telling than your lack of response, now.

Misdirection 101
Placing blame on those you don't agree with in order to make your agenda seem more plausible.
Top
+1
Posted by CarlosSantos (+881) 5 years ago
Reply to Brandy Allen (#362721)
Brandy Allen wrote:
I will wait for you "brown shirts" to catch up over the next year while this conflict worsens and monotheistic religions fall subsequently, giving rise to luciferian doctrine.



I'm sure you didn't write that, I'm likely just twisting your words to fit "my agenda"

For your information only:

"Liciferian Doctrine" and "Atheistic Pregression" are two VERY different things, though you seem to use them interchangeably and as a synonym with evil.

Good luck in your conquests...
Top
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
Carlos Danger says;

If you have no problem with non-theists, why bring them up at all.
They have absolutely NOTHING to do with this conflict.
It's not a matter of wanting a biased answer.
It's a matter of wanting AN answer.



Answer"
I bring them "atheist" up, because they will be the main benefactor of a religious war between islam and Christianity. Is that plain enough?
Top
-2
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
Carlos Danger says:

When repetition is all one is capable of, it's usually a sign of a weak "agenda


Some people call it staying on the topic of discussion. If you would like the discussing to move in a different way, I suggest you start a new thread.

However if you are going to comment on this threads topic, please stay on topic. I know its hard for you, but if you start doing some meditation, it can help with this ADHD.
Top
-2
Posted by CarlosSantos (+881) 5 years ago
Again, you just turn to insults because you lack the couth not to.

Non-Theists will not benefit in ANY way from the Syrian Conflict.

To ascertain that they will is just nonsensical.

The only thing non-theists benefit from is reason and rationality, typically gathered due to the violence and hate seen within organized religious groups.

And I am on topic, sir. This is a thread I started in order to discuss the conflict. It is you that decided to suddenly drag Atheist Progressives into this and then refused to back your own comments.

Please, just flood this with more information about your pipeline control issues. WE understand that aspect of your argument.

It's the rest that is nonsense.
Top
+3
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
No insults, other than "brown shirt", and that's only an insult if you don't like the geopolitical place that you've made for yourself and your ideals.

When taking such a staunch stance for or against something, one must consider the type of people you are sharing this stance with. The German "BROWN SHIRTS thought they could have Hitler's ear after they helped him to victory. Instead they were killed.

The same thing will happen to these multinational borderless movements. After these extremist 3rd world savages "isis, ms13 etc" get here or to Europe, they will not thank the people, they will kill them.

This was not just a German issue, it happened in turkey and many other places as well. You can rename a traitor, but they are still just people without any loyalties "REVOLUTIONARIES". If these kind of people ever got their way, it would not be long before their personal agendas destroyed them from with-in. Revolutionaries can only exist by projecting an existential threat to a group they seek to rally. They can not lead or govern without a bias, this has always been their undoing. They can not exist without an enemy!!

Progression towards the 3rd world revolutionaries is treason to the 1st world rights that we hold as self evident. I just hope the new mayor understands that we can progress in many different ways, not just the 3rd worlds idea of progress, "invasion of 1st world", that is propagated by the borderless brown shirts on this site.
Top
-3
Posted by CarlosSantos (+881) 5 years ago
Top
+1
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9176) 5 years ago
Not to be overly technical here, but I believe Syria is a Second world country.
Top
+1
Posted by CarlosSantos (+881) 5 years ago
That really depends on who's the deciding factor on what defines 1st, 2nd, 3rd world, etc...

Syria is typically considered 3rd world... though at one time it may have been considered 2nd world, it is pretty much agreed upon that it now is certainly considered a 3rd world country.

The map below lays out classification

1st: Blue
2nd: Green
3rd: Red

Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9176) 5 years ago
That is... not an accurate map.

1st World - US/Nato/EU sphere of influence
2nd World - Russia, Warsaw Pact, etc sphere of influence
3rd World - Non-aligned.

Syria has always tended to be a Russian client state (although, I suppose you could argue that it could be seen as a french client state as well, so... I don't know)

I mean, I was mostly joking to confuse Daniel K, so don't take my quick assessment as gospel...
Top
Posted by CarlosSantos (+881) 5 years ago
http://www.nationsonline...._world.htm

Just as a reference:

This organization has always been one of my personal go-to sites for geographical and geopolitical information.

The definition of 3rd world is so dependent on which terms you use to define it.

If we're looking at terms of oppression and social-economical development, Syria is definitely on that list.

"The report also includes nine more countries near the bottom of Freedom House's list of the most repressive countries:
Belarus, China, Cote d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Laos, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Zimbabwe.


Again, all of this is completely dependent on who's terms you're using.

In conclusion of my ridiculous elementary-esque report above I appreciate your adding to the riling of this conversation.

Any way you look at it: it sucks to be in Syria right now.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14943) 5 years ago
Brandy saith:
I said atheist will be the major benefactor to the Islamic/ Christian conflict. I stand by that assertation.



The ONLY benefit would be fewer people killing each other over what happens the second after you die. That is probably progress.

[Edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (11/20/2015 12:43:17 PM)]
Top
+2