Creeping Sharia: The Islamisation of the West

Post Reply New Topic

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

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.

A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. It doesn't matter if the terrorist is Shia, Sunni, Khawari, Wahabi, or any of the other 69 sects of Islam, because a person who kills others in the name of Islam is just a terrorist.

It's weird how no none of the western media calls Bachar el Assad as terrorist for what he's doing to Aleppo.

As if this label is only applicable on long-bearded radicals.

Media logic: Wear a tie, have a hot and non-veiled wife, and you can be a mass murderer of your own people without being labeled terrorist.

The word "terrorism" is loaded to the point of meaninglessness. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Loaded_language

Everyone is a terrorist these days. It's a snarl word that has been run into the ground to the point where it has no objective meaning. It may have a legal definition but outside of that context it means "bad people I don't like who I want compare to the 9-11 hijackers."

As far as the media goes, it almost always gets applied to political violence by muslims but rarely to political violence by non-muslims. The guy who shot up the holocaust memorial, the guy who shot up a church in charleston, the guy who flew a small plane into an IRS building, the guy who because of a deep seated grudge against women shot up Santa Barbara were all terrorists by a meaningful definition of the word. But that label by and large was not applied to them. The word terrorism in the current zeitgeist conjures up not political violence that could be committed by anyone one but rather an image of a young man of arab descent who aims to kill people.

The word has become divorced from the behavior and is just a label. Setting off bombs, mass shootings, flying planes into buildings, are all unacceptable behaviors, no matter who does them, but it is only Muslims who are asked to apologize for people who happened to have the same ethnic and or religious identity.

What you say is often true BUT the term "terrorist" is somehow "earned." So: "Baptist terrorists" or other similar epithet just doesn't sound right. But "Muslim terrorist" has a certain "ring" to it, wouldn't you agree?

And that's because you also never hear about Baptists using bomb vests to blow up innocent people to make a point. So this is what I mean by the term "earned."

"The word has become divorced from the behavior and is just a label. Setting off bombs, mass shootings, flying planes into buildings, are all unacceptable behaviors, no matter who does them, but it is only Muslims who are asked to apologize for people who happened to have the same ethnic and or religious identity.

Who asked anyone to apologize? Answers would be better.....for example: What chance is there refugees to our country will be already radicalized....or that their children will become radicalized, as we see happening throughout the world? Other than followers of Islam how many other groups go about killing themselves and others with BOMB VESTS?

The Muslim religion produces terrorists by the bushel load. Other religions (although not perfect) don't seem to have this problem...why is that? The Muslim religion has earned it's bloody reputation..and although you do not..others revel in the killing of innocents....I guess there's nothing "merciful" going on there after all.

The USA created the Al Queda in the same sense that we created the Contras in Nicaragua. Thats just stating the obvious. That Al Queda turned on us later was an accident. But Al Queda has been fighting the same enemies weve been fighting - in Bosnia in the Nineties, and in Syria right now. And we were unwittingly (and quite possibly wittingly and deliberately) arming Al Queda in Syria against Assad.

You seem to be picking one single tactic of terrorism as being the definition of terrorism, its not even the worst thing they can do. They could for instance use a plain old regular bomb, hide and then bomb again as Eric Rudolf did. They can use a firearm and shoot up a building.

Moreover the use of suicide vest isn't even a religious thing. It often has completely secular motivations.

"Beneath the religious rhetoric with which [such terror] is perpetrated, it occurs largely in the service of secular aims. Suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation rather than a product of Islamic fundamentalism ... Though it speaks of Americans as infidels, al-Qaida is less concerned with converting us to Islam than removing us from Arab and Muslim lands." Source

You seem to be picking one single tactic of terrorism as being the definition of terrorism

I could have made the connection, although I did not, with other atrocities, as you say. But if you'll reread our posts you will see I was picking this very visible example of "Muslim exclusive" terrorism which I feel has justly earned them the "Terrorist" label; and also in relation to other, civilized, religions, who do NOT think killing innocent men, women and children is a church sponsored and approved religious event. I think Bingo is about as radical as many of these other religions get.

So, no. I do not believe I offered a definition of terrorism. Merely the connection between why people use the term "Muslim terrorist" and not "Baptist terrorist", or "Buddhist terrorist" etc.

I could have made the connection, although I did not, with other atrocities, as you say. But if you'll reread our posts you will see I was picking this very visible example of "Muslim exclusive" terrorism which I feel has justly earned them the "Terrorist" label; and also in relation to other, civilized, religions, who do NOT think killing innocent men, women and children is a church sponsored and approved religious event.