UK Gets First "Sharia Controlled Zone".

reply to post by Zamini


So you admit mild manners and reason are preferable to fatwa and cursing freedom to hell?

I wonder how atheists would fare under Islamic rule? Would you be so quick to label the Imams 'mad mullahs' should Islam gain control of the west?

Incidently, in the town where I uncovered more than half a million pounds of benefit fraud, Muslims make up nearly 15% of the population yet were responsible for more than 99% of my case load! But what really opened my eyes was how many times I was offered bribes and had my life threatened!

And yes Zamini, theft is theft and thieves are thieves. The difference with Islamic thieves is they believe they steal with God's grace.

Right, Zamini my old chum, sorry to keep you waiting and I can see you were getting anxious, but some of us have lives, families and jobs that take up a considerable portion of the available time in any given day. That and the topic you wish to discuss is so far removed from the topic of the thread I really do not wish to get drawn into a big sideshow with you.

That said, lets review your post..

Originally posted by Zamini
What do you know about the propaganda tapes made by Khomenei in France? How was Khomenei supported by the British government?

If I am honest, I do not the details of his tapes, but I am most certainly not aware of any British support for Khomeini, which surely runs counter to the very point you're trying to make? The British, Americans and the West in general supported the Shah, who Khomeini opposed.

At any rate, Khomeini and the rest of his ilk all opposed reforms in 1963 byu the Shah which would have granted Western stykle freedoms and economic progress to Iran. Speaks volumes really about the guy, considering what the White Revolution was proposing.

Originally posted by Zamini
I see your 1954 and raise you 1901. You see, this issue goes back further than your brief history.

What point is it you're trying to prove here? In 1901, a private business man negotiated with the Shah to explore for oil and agreed the terms of the profit share./ Later on, Iranians got uppity about this but not because they only got 16% of revenue, but because the Shah was getting the money, not the State or people. If you ask me, it seems that you're deflecting the blame onto the Oil company for a dodgy deal negotiated by a corrupt Iranian monarch.

Originally posted by Zamini
Not to forget how the West hates democracy when it is not in their favor:

The AIOC withdrew its management from Iran, and organised an effective boycott of Iranian oil. The British government – which owned the AIOC – contested the nationalisation at the International Court of Justice at The Hague, but its complaint was dismissed

The nationalisation of the Oil company was built on the background of some pretty stupid concessions the Iranians agreed to during the 1933 reneogotiation of the concession, namely the exempted the company from many taxes and allowed the company to select the best area to drill, counter to their reasons for renegotiating in the first place. The British didn't pressure for these or even have them in the 1933 agreement, the Iranians made the mistakes themselves.

Originally posted by Zamini
I wonder why the British government wanted to overthrow the democratic government of Iran at the time. Did it have to do with oppression of people? Oh no it did not, on the contrary, it was LACK of oppression of a people, namely the Iranian people.

Considering the Iranians renegged (for the second time) on the deal, it has to be seen in that context. Also, consider this was during the height of the cold war and all sides were playing proxy games to secure regions and resources. It wasn't just the UK.

Originally posted by Zamini
So why did the Shah then remove the pro-Western puppet that was put in its place, I wonder why he took a firm stance against the puppet government and its followers after he got back. Maybe he saw how they planned to loot Iran blind. FYI, all this talk against Muslim extremism; the Shah who you are badmouthing ordered police onto the streets of Iran to take the hijab off the heads of women who wore them, he said it was demeaning to their Iranian nationality as Islam is not part of Iranian culture.

What the hell are you gibbering about? In 1953, during Operation Ajax, Mossadegh was overthrown and a "puppet", as you put it, was then in place. You seem to be getting rather confused. The Shah was the "puppet".

Originally posted by Zamini
The Shah of Iran actually took a stance that was not friendly to Nazi Germany.

Not entirely true. He actually tried to remain neutral, but was selling Oil to Germany.

Originally posted by Zamini
This upset Germany. Because Germany wanted very much the Iranian support that came with plenty resources.
This want that Germany had made it so that Britain and Russia invaded Iran just to make sure there was no support from Iran to Germany, and to keep the resources for themselves of course.

There was a huge German presence in iran during the War and the Allies feared a possible coup to prevent them access to the Oil and to deliver possible War winning resources to Germany. On this pretext, Russia and the UK invaded to seize control of the Oil fields. It might seem nasty, but in the wider context of the War, it was necessary.

Originally posted by Zamini
So when Iran did not supply to the Germans, who did?

Late president George W. Bush's grandfather. But I suppose you like to ignore the support Nazi Germany received from the catholic church, bank of England, Stalin, prominent American businessmen(who are now in charge of America), etc. etc.

Some is getting all confused... Iran supplied Oil to Germany for quite some time during the War and the supporters you quote all date from before the War even started.

Originally posted by Zamini
See, this is why I ignore you most of the times, because you are an ignorant fool.

Pot - Kettle

Originally posted by Zamini
Besides, I'm still curious to Stumason's reply. Don't think I'll get one though.

I never let people down. Enjoy

reply to post by earthling42

so then it is the whipped cream, but not wanting the whole cake.

Bull#

How complete is Islam without the sharia?

Fear mongering statement # 1.

Why are there sharia courts in england while it already has english laws?

Ignorance noted. You do know there are Jewish courts and whatever other religious courts you can name, right? Why are you not making a fuss about that? You did know this right? Or were you ignorant of it and assumed that just because Islam has their own version of courts they get to stone people in Britain? That is not the case and can never be the case as these religious courts cannot override the law of the land. Same here in the Netherlands. (I see now why you try to minimize the Wilders issue, you're a fearful, irrational person).

Ignorance denied.

reply to post by poet1b

What a load of bs, my first two sources are, if anything, kind to the history of Iran, and not biased at all.

Ignorant one, how can a source not be biased.

I prevent facts, with links backing up said facts, while you present a lot of made up garbage and personal opinion as history.

What you did was google stuff and post it out of context. What I have done is take these facts for which you need to do more research to find, and present them in context. Not my problem you don't believe me. That's your own ignorance for ye. Your links by the way, do not support any argument you are making. Yes Islam introduced slavery in Iran - so what? I knew this. I also knew that before the Islamic conquest there was no sanctioned slavery in Iran. You are not telling me anything new with your 1-minute research links.

After presenting such a biased view of history, for you to pretend you are neutral on the subject is a joke at best.

I have a not-so neutral stance towards Islam in Iran, but that is something you would not know of because you're an opinionated person.

Keep fanning the flames.

Some more bull#.

reply to post by ALOSTSOUL
OF course what do you expect our governments know they are a bit nuts but so is our governments,they want us to fight! its a trap ! just screw with them back start a party zone and dont let them in make our governments Crazy till they stop pandering, It should be one for all,All for one. Or move to friggen Iran.

reply to post by stumason

If I am honest, I do not the details of his tapes, but I am most certainly not aware of any British support for Khomeini, which surely runs counter to the very point you're trying to make? The British, Americans and the West in general supported the Shah, who Khomeini opposed.

In general they supported the Shah until the Shah started nationalizing. The West, and the British going through the most trouble to not lose Iranian oil, supported the coupe which put Khomenei in power.

At any rate, Khomeini and the rest of his ilk all opposed reforms in 1963 byu the Shah which would have granted Western stykle freedoms and economic progress to Iran.

What happened? Did these Western freedoms and economic progresses not continue? Do you know for how long the price of food in Iran stayed the same before the Islamic folk took control? You speak as if foreign interests(British, American) could not support one guy then support another one, just to further their own agenda. That's a straw man you're creating.

Later on, Iranians got uppity about this but not because they only got 16% of revenue, but because the Shah was getting the money, not the State or people.

Who gets the money now? And once again, look up the food prices and inflation in Iran in those times.

If you ask me, it seems that you're deflecting the blame onto the Oil company for a dodgy deal negotiated by a corrupt Iranian monarch.

Not really, but then again you do seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. It's as if you are trying to minimize the involvement of the British crown in destabilizing Iran to me though...Notice how you say "British businessman"

The nationalisation of the Oil company was built on the background of some pretty stupid concessions the Iranians agreed to during the 1933 reneogotiation of the concession, namely the exempted the company from many taxes and allowed the company to select the best area to drill, counter to their reasons for renegotiating in the first place.

That is because as you put it before, the revenue went to a select few and as such, they don't care as long as they get paid. That is, until the people start noticing and asking questions - which is a good thing that led to a prosperity and wealth being brought to areas across Iran.

The British didn't pressure for these or even have them in the 1933 agreement, the Iranians made the mistakes themselves.

A mistake they would later want to correct. OPEC in that sense was an ingenious concept because you can't kill one head of state or organize a coupe in one state and gain the upper hand in the oil trading business.
Too bad these countries were run by crooks, still.

Considering the Iranians renegged (for the second time) on the deal, it has to be seen in that context. Also, consider this was during the height of the cold war and all sides were playing proxy games to secure regions and resources. It wasn't just the UK.

So? I don't consider that an excuse. "Just because everybody else is doing it..." That's a very dangerous mindset and indeed, once again, a colonialist mindset.

What the hell are you gibbering about? In 1953, during Operation Ajax, Mossadegh was overthrown and a "puppet", as you put it, was then in place. You seem to be getting rather confused. The Shah was the "puppet".

Yes, you're talking about the 1953 overthrow, which was ALSO at the hands of CIA and British. After a while though the Shah started moving towards nationalization(because as said before; when the population noted that he was a puppet in the early stages the population wanted to oppose him) and THAT is when he himself was overthrown by ANOTHER CIA, British and French organized coupe.

Not entirely true. He actually tried to remain neutral, but was selling Oil to Germany.

Bull#

There was a huge German presence in iran during the War and the Allies feared a possible coup to prevent them access to the Oil and to deliver possible War winning resources to Germany.

Bull# :

However according to the British embassy reports from Tehran in 1940, the total number of German citizens in Iran - from technicians to spies - was no more than a thousand.

wiki

On this pretext, Russia and the UK invaded to seize control of the Oil fields. It might seem nasty, but in the wider context of the War, it was necessary.

Bull#, that was the propaganda pretext. The real pretext of course:

Although still a neutral nation, Reza Shah Pahlavi had brought Iran closer to Germany.[2] This concerned the British who feared that the Abadan Oil Refinery, owned by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, might fall into German hands — the refinery produced eight million tons of oil in 1940 and was thus a crucial part of the Allied war effort. For the Soviets, Iran was a country of extreme strategic importance. The German Army (Heer) was steadily advancing through the Soviet Union and the Persian Corridor was one of the few ways for the Allies to get desperately needed Lend-Lease supplies to the Soviets from the United States.

wiki

So the Shah had brought the nations closer in business terms PRE-WW2. So during WW2, what was the Shah's stance? Oh yes, neutrality. But the British needed their oil and the Soviets needed their supplies.

Some is getting all confused... Iran supplied Oil to Germany for quite some time during the War and the supporters you quote all date from before the War even started.

WHAT? You are revising history here...which company sold the Nazis Zyklon B?

Pot - Kettle

Is that all you bull# propaganda spouting people can post? You know, other than being colonialist mouth pieces.

I never let people down.

Oh I sincerely doubt that.

reply to post by Zamini


Just an observation.

You criticise poet1b for his sources, because they disagree with your pre-conceived world viewpoint, then offer quotes from wikipedia in response to stumason.

You crack me up.

Thanks for putting a smile on my face so early on a Friday morning, I hope this cheerful mood lasts till I get to the pub later this afternoon.

reply to post by Freeborn

You criticise poet1b for his sources, because they disagree with your pre-conceived world viewpoint,

No, I criticize him for using sources out of context. If we are talking about say, the blue sky and you bring in a source that's about green grass...that is out of context.

And if you would use your mighty powers of observation you would've noticed that even before "criticizing his sources"(Bull#) I say this:

how can a source not be biased.

Thereby implying that any sources posted, even my own, will be biased towards one side. The point is to get these sources and check their relevance to history, who they were written by etc; the general routine one learns in history classes. After that one must check if the sources are in context to the discussion.

Thanks for putting a smile on my face so early on a Friday morning, I hope this cheerful mood lasts till I get to the pub later this afternoon.

Don't rely on your powers of observation only to get you to the pub, you might end up in a classroom...ow wait...

reply to post by Freeborn


Just a quick observation:

Your immediate dismissal of a source JUST because it is from wikipedia is worrying. You do know that there are sources listed under the articles right? Sources which one can check for reliability as one learns in history classes. Aside from that, the source and information are not out of context to the discussion we are having.

Another observation:

I think you'd be well off if you brought a history book to the pub.

Can someone in Britain please tell me what has happened to their prime minister, all their MPs, and the House of Lords. And to the royal family?

Have they all died?

If not, what is this extremist Muslim crap doing in Britain?

reply to post by Zamini


It's not just that you used wikipedia, some people believe it to be a less than creditable source however I have used it myself, rather than the manner that you criticise one person for his use of sources from the internet and then your own subsequent use of internet sources.

Apologies if I wasn't as clear as I would have liked in my previous post, too early in the day for me to be so highly amused.

And I would never desecrate the sanctity of a pub on a Friday with something so learned as a bone fide history book.
It is solely for pool, darts and a bit of craic with the lads whilst listening to very loud music and eventually talking utter bollocks with the deepest sincerity.
Some things are sacrosanct.!

reply to post by Freeborn


Before I reply to your points I must ask, are you patronizing on purpose? Are you trying not to read what I type on purpose? Or is it "just how your brain works"?

It's not just that you used wikipedia, some people believe it to be a less than creditable source

Yes and why do they believe that? Because people can post without adding sources, however, in this case if you'd care to look(which is what we do when we deny ignorance) you would see there are several sources cited and if you'd care even more you could click them and read a more specific source.

however I have used it myself,

I really do not care.

rather than the manner that you criticise one person for his use of sources from the internet and then your own subsequent use of internet sources.

Do you have problems with reading comprehension? The "use of sources" (trying to weasel your way out by the use of semantics) by the other guy was out of context to what is being discussed. We're talking about British involvement in destabilizing Iran, not about Shah dynasties and the Muslim conquest into Persia in the 7th century. Can you comprehend the difference? The poster is making Iran out to be a barbaric land just waiting to be rescued by the West; which is how colonialists got and get to work. Still not comprehending? Feel free to continue and make a fool of yourself, I don't mind.

reply to post by Zamini


You really are a pretentious prick.

It was a genuine, well intentioned apology.

That you can not accept it with at least a little bit of grace and respond with nothing but personal attacks and insults speaks volumes about you as an individual and may go some way in explaining why you have so little respect here on ATS, and I suspect out there in the real world.

reply to post by Freeborn

You really are a pretentious prick.

Yeh, whatever...

It was a genuine, well intentioned apology.

So the condescending part was well intentioned as well I see.

That you can not accept it with at least a little bit of grace

There are several ATS members who can disagree with you there. Besides, how can you judge me for not taking the small pox invested blanket that you're trying to give me(metaphorically speaking)?

and respond with nothing but personal attacks and insults speaks volumes about you as an individual and may go some way in explaining why you have so little respect here on ATS

What does you trying to minimize and patronize my posts and my response to that have ANYTHING to do with me as a person? It does not. In fact it says more about you as a person. Maybe this issue is not important to you, after all, you're going to the pub and you'll forget all about the UKs involvement in destabilizing Iran as you proceed to get drunk and shout slurs(about what I'll leave to you to figure out)- but this is something an entire population lives with. A piece of information that is scraped away by history-revisionists and their little helpers(that's you).

Respect? Please, you barely have an idea of what respect is. Demand it all you want but until you don't show it, you won't get it.

and I suspect out there in the real world.

When you assume like this you make an ass out of you and me.

reply to post by Zamini


Well the questions weren't for you, but since you took the time to (not) answer them, and can only refer to your superiority, (all others are just fools and ignorant right?) please do show that superiority and answer them on a civilised manner.

If they flee from the regime, which obviously is the theocratic islam with its laws and thus sharia (that is what we are discussing in this thread) then naturaly the answer is that they do not want sharia.
So my question (how complete is islam without sharia?) can not possible be fearmongering right?

A part of islam is thus excluded, or is sharia not a part of islam?

And yes, if jews in england also have their own courts in england, i was indeed ignorant about that, i am not englisch so to the englisch people, and to you i ask to confirm that with backup like a source.
I did know however that the sharia courts set up in england are for minor cases to be resolved like violence and financial issues.
Not chopping of a foot or hand, stoning and so on, and offcourse they can not override the law of the land.
So that makes the sharia controlled zone in england quite impossible.

reply to post by Zamini

So the condescending part was well intentioned as well I see.

There was nothing condescending about it; it was a well intentioned apology, nothing more - nothing less.
That you couldn't, and still can't, see that speaks far more about you than it does me.

Maybe the imaginary 'condescending part' comes more from your own insecurities and the chip you seem to have on your shoulder as there was absolutely no intent from me.
Despite the occassional bout of sarcasm or irony I tend to be pretty blunt and obvious with my insults - just to ensure there is no confusion over the intention.

There are several ATS members who can disagree with you there.

Good.

Besides, how can you judge me for not taking the small pox invested blanket that you're trying to give me(metaphorically speaking)?

Nothing intentional I assure you, must be your imagination.
And I think you are confusing me with someone who cares enough to be so duplicitous...I really don't care enough about you either way to be arsed to contrive something like that.

What does you trying to minimize and patronize my posts and my response to that have ANYTHING to do with me as a person?

I think you mistake disagreement with patronising

Maybe this issue is not important to you,

The very fact that I've bothered to post my opinion would suggest to most that this is indeed a matter of importance to me.

after all, you're going to the pub

I enjoy going to the pub and I don't harm anyone else by doing so, why shouldn't I go to the pub?

and you'll forget all about the UKs involvement in destabilizing Iran as you proceed to get drunk and shout slurs(about what I'll leave to you to figure out)-

Yes, I probably will for a while.
Whilst it is important to me it's not all consuming.
But then again, who knows what the topics of conversation will be?
One of the many beauties of the British pub is that it is where a broad cross section of society meet and interact and anything and everything get's talked about.
I frequently discuss current affairs with my friends and strangers.
I frequently don't as well.

And I am a drinker not a drunkard; there is a very big difference.

And I have absolutley no intention of shouting slurs about anyone, well maybe the odd well directed one at chimp choking cod heads!

but this is something an entire population lives with. A piece of information that is scraped away by history-revisionists and their little helpers(that's you).

As I've told you before I am friends with some Iranians and none of them are obsessed with this subject.
In fact they disagree with the vast majority of what you post.

Respect? Please, you barely have an idea of what respect is.

How come?
Because I dare to disagree with you and ask you to provide supportive evidence or reasoned arguement to support your claims and accusations?

Demand it all you want but until you don't show it, you won't get it.

Lol.
I wouldn't dream of demanding anything here on ATS, please show me where I have and I'll admit I was wrong and offer ANOTHER genuine apology.

When you assume like this you make an ass out of you and me.

Yeah, maybe so.
No-one should make assumptions; I just have to look at how inaccurate so many assumptions made about me have been here on ATS.

reply to post by earthling42

If they flee from the regime, which obviously is the theocratic islam with its laws and thus sharia (that is what we are discussing in this thread) then naturaly the answer is that they do not want sharia.

COUNT the amount of assumptions you are making here. Then kick yourself in the head please.

A part of islam is thus excluded, or is sharia not a part of islam?

BINGO. Sharia law is not part of Islam. It's the part that those powers that collude with Western governments introduced.

, and to you i ask to confirm that with backup like a source.

Really now? The audacity...google should be in your toolbar.

So that makes the sharia controlled zone in england quite impossible.

Impossible indeed. Now take a look at how long it took you to figure that out while you could have known the same by just looking at the Original Post and the source.

reply to post by Freeborn

There was nothing condescending about it; it was a well intentioned apology, nothing more - nothing less.

Alright, if that is the case, I'll take your word for it. If you'd read back you can clearly see why I'd think it is not well intentioned.

Maybe the imaginary 'condescending part' comes more from your own insecurities and the chip you seem to have on your shoulder as there was absolutely no intent from me.

No, now you are projecting onto me. Of course there was absolutely no intent, that's why I'm here for yer entertainment right?

And I think you are confusing me with someone who cares enough to be so duplicitous...I really don't care enough about you either way to be arsed to contrive something like that.

So when in one sentence you're making me out to be an idiot and in the other you're "apologizing", it does not make sense.

I think you mistake disagreement with patronising

No, I'm quite sure I don't.

The very fact that I've bothered to post my opinion would suggest to most that this is indeed a matter of importance to me.

No it's not. Otherwise you'd bother to read links and think of the implications of my posts instead of "being amused on a Friday morning before going to a pub". Grow the # up you patronizing fool.

As I've told you before I am friends with some Iranians and none of them are obsessed with this subject.
In fact they disagree with the vast majority of what you post.

How many of them are aware and informed of the Iranian situation? How many dug into the past? As with the English, Iranians can also be ignorant. Now I'm not saying they are ignorant per se and I won't say anything else about them, as I do not know their situation.

Here's one for you; next time when you meet with your "Iranian friends" ask them about the heroin problem in Iran. Or ask about the glass problem in Iran. I don't mind people disagreeing with my opinion, just don't disagree with realities that are out there. That makes one a stooge.

And how can these "Iranian friends" of yours disagree with what I am saying when I'm the only one saying it? Are they on ATS?

Try again. Or don't. Won't reply if you can't be bothered to post at least something with substance or food for thought.

reply to post by Zamini


Well was that so difficult? thus sharia is not part of islam!

That was what my question was and now you have answered that question, thanks

Turkey is a Muslim country and do not follow Sharia law, they even pay taxes which is not allowed between Muslims.

You people need to stop beign so ignorant about Muslims. He all the Muslims decided to stopped working in the UK, the economy will collapsed inmediately because they are a key part of our society in the UK, the owed many businesses here.

Did you know that Merlin Enterteintments for example is owned by Muslims? Yes, London Eye, Thorpe Park, Madam Tussauds etc? You people do not know what you are talking about.

That some minority are behaving in one way or another, do you need to generalise?

Would I say then that all British are a bunch of racists? I had had experiences here with the so called "Chavs" and they are a bunch of cancer in this country that do nothing but being anti-social. My brother-in-law was beaten up by three guys for being an immigrant, my friend was being harrased because she was speaking Spanish in public. Yesterday, I am not kidding you, I had to take a group of Muslim Saudis to a park and during the trip back, two very white British 15 year old drunk girls started to attacked the Arabs calling them "Terrorists" "We want to bomb your country", "F***ng immigrants!". My collegue had to intervine and unluckely, he is Latino and they also went for him calling him names related to immigrants the, we called security. The security guy was a Black guy and they also went after his color! Everything was filmed and I am very tempted to send it to The Sun. Extremism and hate happens everywhere in teh world and you cannot generalise. Would I say that all WHite people are ignorant like these two girls? NO!

Another thing, what is so wrong in preventing people drinking in public, prostitution or drug abuse? I would be very happy if my community gathered and try to make stickers like that specially because I live in a place where they are so much alcohol comsuption and anti-social behaviour with Chav shouts and druggies screams during the day and night.

Only extremism will come from extremism and your post is ridiculous specially during these times where Norway is suffering because a WHITE LOCAL GUY decided to be TERRORIST because he HATES MUSLIMS. here you go people, learn that ANYONE CAN BE A TERRORIST AND IT CAN HAPPEN ANYWHERE!

Did anyone know that there was a terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia about 4-5 years ago?

of course not, becaiuse it wouldnt make the black box shinny evil box in front of your forehead!

DENY IGNORANCE? Yeah right, this ATS is getting worse every day