Creeping Sharia: The Islamisation of the West

Page 9 of 10 [ 158 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Barchan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 850

03 May 2016, 5:39 pm

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

Quote:
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’

“Then these righteous ones will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?’

“And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!’


I agree. I also have often said that the way we treat others is how we will be treated by God. There is no Heaven for those who sow conflict.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

03 May 2016, 7:59 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
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.


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.





Please keep it straight which subject you are ranting about.

If you wanna argue with a 9-11 conspiracy nut then go find one of them to argue with, and stop picking on me please.

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.





I didnt say "we created Al Queda for the purpose of having Al Queda attack us in 9-11".

Further:

Nine eleven conspiracy nuts ALSO rarely claim that either.

The party line of 9-11 conspiracy nuts is that 9-11 is an inside job done by the US government without any involvement from real Arab terrorists. And that the only function of Al Queda in the 9-11 was to exist as an alibi and as a scapegoat for the US government to pin the blame on. Please get that straight. Saying the "US created Al Queda" is not the same thing as saying "nine eleven was a hoax". Two different issues.











Al Queda was our ally in Bosnia, and IS our ally now against Assad in Syria. Though they nor we acknowledge it.

I did NOT claim that we funded the start Al Queda SO THAT we could order Al Queda to attack ourselves in 9-11. The 9-11 attack was an accidental by product of us funding the start up of Al Queda.

Thats not what I said.
And further: that isnt even what 9-11 conspiracy nuts say.

The party line of 9-11 conspiracy nuts is that the US Government just did 9-11 as inside job on its own ( fake airliners, controlled demolition teams and whatever) without involving Al Queda at all except to use Al Queda as an alibi and as a scapegoat to pin 9-11 on.



Barchan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 850

03 May 2016, 8:33 pm

Do you think maybe you could take the 9/11 stuff to another thread? I don't think it's relevant here.



Cup
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2016
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 43

03 May 2016, 8:49 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
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.

Quote:
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,


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.


I don't disagree with any of that, I knew Iran was modernized and the original revolutionaries were leftist and also executed but America and Europe are not like Lebanon. Muslims will never be a majority and treating them like invaders, isolating them, when many of them were trying to get AWAY from the toxic people in the region will only push more of them to radicalization. I've read journal articles that showed that most radicals prior to joining extremist groups are educated but suffer from depression, related disorders. I would imagine not being able to find a job probably contributes to a build of resentment. And racial profiling means they are going to be treated like a "terrorist" regardless of whether or not they have extreme views.



Cup
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2016
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 43

03 May 2016, 8:52 pm

CIA has a really bad habit of funding shady people to do shady things in other countries and then being surprised when said shady characters turn on them. It is almost like someone who relishes torturing people and has a grudge against everyone and no legal status to conduct violence is a bit untrustworthy.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

03 May 2016, 9:56 pm

Fnord wrote:
Barchan wrote:
It's unfair and dishonest to compare Shi'a militants to Sunni terrorists...
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.

QFT.
Likewise the Christian fundies who bomb and shoot up clinics and churches here in the US are terrorists.



Cup
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2016
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 43

04 May 2016, 2:18 am

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.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,129
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

04 May 2016, 5:56 am

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.



underwater
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Sep 2015
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,904
Location: Hibernating

04 May 2016, 6:05 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
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.


Assad would be called a murderous tyrant. The whole point of terrorism is using extreme acts to attract attention, precisely because one is not in majority or in a position of power. That excludes heads of state.



ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,730
Location: On top of the world

04 May 2016, 10:18 am

Cup wrote:
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.



Cup
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2016
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 43

04 May 2016, 11:50 am

ZenDen wrote:
Cup wrote:
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.


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



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

04 May 2016, 12:10 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
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.


This isn't true either. The contras were directly trained an armed. You have not provided evidence of this with regard to Al Queda.

The CIA approached Afghan contacts not Arab. Nether were created, they already existed.

The little evidence of Al Queda at the time, not much in terms combat.



ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,730
Location: On top of the world

04 May 2016, 12:24 pm

Cup wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
Cup wrote:
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.


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.



Cup
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2016
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 43

04 May 2016, 4:01 pm

ZenDen wrote:
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 think Bingo is about as radical as many of these other religions get.

It's the same way in a typical American Mosque, minus the bingo. They probably have halal snack foods though. I have never been to a mosque but I would imagine.

And insinuating that the culture that gave us algebra and chemistry and preserved the writings of ancient greek thinkers is not civilized suggests that you are a lot like /pol/



Drake
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,577

04 May 2016, 4:25 pm

That's like comparing the Roman Empire in its prime to Rome in its decline shortly before its destruction and saying Rome in its decline is just as glorious as Rome in its prime.

Or maybe this will hit home better, saying a wife beating husband is a good man because he used to be a good husband.



Barchan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 850

04 May 2016, 4:46 pm

ZenDen wrote:
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.


"Justly"?

You think it's just to stereotype 1.6 billion people like that? :?