Creeping Sharia: The Islamisation of the West

Post Reply New Topic

Exactly. Al Queda was created by the US, in concert with its Arab allies, to fight the Soviets as Boo said.
Osama got weapons from us to fight the Soviets. Then he turned on us.

Also they were later our unwitting allies in Bosnia, and are our mutual witting allies in the early days of the Syrian Civil War against Assad.

The previous Persian Empires in history always relied on mercs for its wars, Iran didn't change in that.
They don't have to invade anyone directly as long they can get what they want via proxies. This is the civilization that had invented the chess.

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 02 May 2016, 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Unlike how it was with Bin laden people, Chinese didn't get trained by the US to fight the Soviets.

It is a well documented historical fact that Bin laden and his crooks were trained and supplemented by the US - I am not relying on conspiracy theories here, this one is real.

Provide evidence.

I think you are thinking of the Mujahideen.

It doesn't even have to do it in the name of Islam to be terrorist, any act of bombing/spraying/shooting civilians in any name is terrorism.

And do you really believe that those Mujahideen were purely Afghan, and there were no Arab radicals (Arab Afghans) joining their ranks? They were there since the war with the Soviets.

And we all know this newspaper piece: http://www.businessinsider.com/1993-ind ... en-2013-12

I'm not talking about opinions. You said it was "well documented" yet provided no evidence. Al-Queda was a non-entity at the time why would they give equipment an training to a group hardly in the fight?

The training the CIA gave to the Mujahideen was how to use stinger missiles against soviet helicopters. That is documented.

Please provide evidence of interaction with Al-Queda and contacts.

What actual evidence do you have? The incompetence of the US funding programs with the Mujahadeen and leaving some resources there, is not the same thing as creating Al Queda, unless you mean by accident.

These are popular theories, but that is exactly what they are.

As theories they don't actually make all that much sense, beyond this vague idea that that multiple administrations are running this this group as an organized agent of power, when actually there so much inherant power needed for the conspiracy to stack up and being maintained it is a pointless exercise. They could just use the power they have overtly.

The flaw in these conspiracies is self interest. They require an ironically inhuman amount of cooperation to do an attack like 9/11 truthers claim, with all the players involved, somehow not leaving any direct evidence of this association except supposed deliberate obscure clues to directly goad the true believers for no apparent reason. When it is obviously a dumb thing for them to do.

Can I just say that you are brilliant and I really appreciate your contributions here? I've gone back and looked at your posts and been impressed how you've rolled with the punches some really oppressively ignorant people have thrown.

Now, I am Christian but I'm also a universalist and a progressive and definitely not an evangelical. I tend to believe that The Supreme Being shows himself to different cultures in different masks and tailors Their message to the needs and values of the culture. I believe They are ultimately trying to show us a path to salvation. While we are all cursed with sin, ultimately I believe that we will all be sorted out in the end.

While Christianity is my preferred path and I believe that Jesus was the son of The Supreme Being, I disagree with evangelicals in that I believe there are others. And whether they are "right" or not, I will always stand with folks who are marginalized.

In my book, my favorite passage of all. Matthew 25 contains an apocalyptic parable:



That to me is what living my faith means.

Wild conspiracy theories that demonize immigrants from the global south with hyperbolic rhetoric about Sharia Law just makes me It's so ignorant and asinine. When people say that, what they are revealing about their personality is they would prefer to kick folks while their down.

I do not believe any of the 9/11 conspiracy theories - I was pointing out to the temporary relationship that the US may had with the Arab Afghans to fight the soviets.

That to me is what living my faith means.

.[/quote]


Honestly, I don't find her brilliant at all and I can't and will never be able to relate to her. For her, she calls Hezbollah' crimes as "Crimes" (she's being sarcastic) and exaggerated, she doesn't live in Lebanon, she doesn't know Hezbollah closely, and she is not aware of the oppression they are doing against other sects and other opposing parties. She calls terrorists as militants because they're Shia.

I think she is very biased regarding the Shia and very pro-Iranian current regime - and I think it's useless to discuss with her any further, I know now to which side she belongs, and I know she will justify any action her side does.

Shi'a had a lot of terrorist groups too and did terrorist acts, the current Iranian regime is founded on terrorism and oppression, many of the Iranians are probably one of the most oppressed people on earth- they are a captive society - most of these reformists who are winning the elections? Most of them would want a different life for Iran but they have no other choice but to abide, executions rate is the highest in the world there.

We all remember what happened in Iran in 2009, and how the Basij acted.

And let's not forget what was done by the regime to the other anti-Shah opposition such as communists and leftists in 1988 when the Mullah took all the power:

viewtopic.php?t=280245

The iranian regime put Iran so backward, from modern liberal country to a totally radical country.



Btw, I come from a Shia family too.

Right, people in that region do some messed up stuff, as I said. It's a tough neighborhood. They are going through a lot of chaos and uncertainty. There are lots of grudges, some of them well earned, not the least of which was the backlash against modernity and anything western as the Shah, a US backed dictator was overthrown by a group that didn't have much in common other than hatred of the Shah, who was an as*hole but a western friendly one. Europe got to go through numerous revolutions and paradigm shifts without much greater powers sticking their noses in it and supporting one side or the other. They got to grow organically and yet atrocities still happened. Remember the Enlightenment? Those sure were some great times, but remember the French Revolution? The US and Russia/USSR have been tipping the scales for decades.

What I respect her for is that she is up against a lot of right wing ignorance. If those folks were in power, if Trump or Le Pen or one of these other crypto white supremacist became president of their respective nations, that nation will become a bad neighborhood too, we could expect the same atrocities in our backyard.

So, leaving the word "Islam" out of your equation, would you say the Apache were the terrorists or would the the U.S. Cavalry be the terrorists, specifically if we're talking about taking the lives of the innocent?

Does self defense ever justify taking the lives of innocents or is this also terrorism? Does the term depend on who is "right", and if so, who can be trusted to make the judgement?

I don't know the answers.

It's perfectly legal to kill innocents during war if you're acting in self-defence and you're hitting legitimate targets.

If one side is using human shields, it's legal to attack the target, even if it means that innocents die.

"It's perfectly legal to kill innocents during war if you're acting in self-defence and you're hitting legitimate targets."
So you would say, if the U.S. Cavalry, in their "Indian War" were to attack a village full of only old people and women and children and kill many of them as possible (as they had done) this would be considered a "target of opportunity" and be justified? Really? Were the troopers fighting in "self defense?"

Would your position be mentioned by any religion as "correct action" or is this determined by some governmental body, or perhaps this is only what YOU feel as the moral and right thing to do?

Cup, the first and the most active opposition against the Shah were the leftists and communist parties, but when Mullahs took over, they hanged the original revolutionnaires.

Iran was a modernized society before the Shah, it was not the Shah who made it modern.


Let me tell you of the "fundemalisation" that Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy, exerted Sharia on the Shia community in Lebanon and in the regions where they control by using both armed and social terrorism:

- I am 34 years old, and when I was in elementary school or so, Hezbollah wasn't as strong and wasn't as socially integrated; and I remember very well that in Muslim community in general and in Shia community in specific, veiling among teen girls was extremely rare - it was even very rare among young adults.
In fact, in the pre-Hezbollah days, tradition was, that a woman was used to choose to wear the hijab only after doing the pilgrimage in Mecca, at age that she chooses. In other word, it was mostly a pro-choice decision when a woman think she reached a certain spiritual maturity - so commonly hijab was seen only among the old and mature (>45) women. The Chador was extremely rare, the hijab consisted only of a veil covering the hair only.

Today, is no longer the case, after generations of girls being schooled in schools established by Hezbollah (thanks to Iranian funds of course), which of course gender segregated , it is not uncommon anymore to see a child or teen girl veiled, in fact, it's not uncommon to see a daughter being more radically veiled (Chador) than her mother. What Hezbollah schools do is organizing yearly massive hijabing ceremonies where they gather all girls who reached the 9 years old, in order to veil them all, during the ceremony a hezbollah Cheikh (Sometimes Nasrallah himself, the head of hezbollah) makes a speech about morals, politics, Israel and the great Satan to... an audience of 9-years old girls.

This is all really goes so against the spirit of Lebanon's constitution which emphasis on the freedom of practicing religion.
They also have a history of harassing communist villages (mostly shia communists) in southern Lebanon (even tho they are their political ally) and often attack alcohol shops and bars there, while alcohol business is totally legal here in Lebanon.

In other word, they are exerting Sharia in the areas they control.

- Hezbollah also used violence against those who opposed them politically, especially against the Shia who dare to oppose them or to oppose their ways, on the days of elections, thugs are often sent to terrorize and to ruin anti-Hezbollah Shia's candidate campaigns - even those those are a minority today however their policy is killing any opposition within the sect before it grows.


- They act completely as a state within state, doing acts of wars, causing unnecessary wars (July 2006) and going to wars against other nearby countries/factions (like in Syria and Yemen) without governmental consent and referendum even tho they are members of the gov, dragging the local economy into ruins.

I am not trying to demonizing them or demonizing Islam or anything, I am talking about real things.

So take notes, westerners, Lebanon is an example that should scare you.