Topic: Is the West gearing up to invade Russia once again? - page 32. (Read 58230 times)

The US had all necessary justifications to send troops to Ukraine, since they signed in 1994 an agreement (as Russia) given assurances to the integrity of Ukraine. They didn't.

It's more than clear that the US doesn't want any war with Russia. It has already his hands full with the hot potatoes that Bush junior left.

I'm sorry but Wikipedia says otherwise:

Again, Iran doesn't use sharia law. This state uses a set of laws, which were passed by legislative body, called Islamic Consultative Assembly. Members of legislative body are elected through national voting. And nobody cares what writers of article on Wikipedia are thinking about that.  Of course almost 100% of MPs are muslims, that's why their law is similar to proposed by sharia system, but this doesn't mean that they're using sharia law.

Classic islamic states are proposed to use sharia law directly and any modification or interpretation of law by people is strictly prohibited. Only clergymen are allowed to do this.

According to some Iranian officials, the judiciary of Iran does not follow Sharia law, but it is civil law ratified by the Parliament. However, all agree that multiple aspects of sharia law are observed in the legal system.

According to one source, the new laws of the Islamic Republic "modify the sharia in three significant ways."

They give the state the "ultimate say" over the death penalty by allowing a new High Court to review death sentences passed by lower magistrates." In contrast, sharia in "its pure form" had no appeals system and gave local judges final say. However, virtually all other countries using sharia law now have an appeals system. While in lesser sentences, the judges verdict would be final, in more serious crimes, the sentence could be appealed to the Provincial Appeals Court. In a capital crime, it would be appealed to the Supreme Court of Cassation. Sometimes criminals get multiple appeals that last for years, depending upon the evidence against them along with "reasonable doubt". Retrials can be ordered, typically in the same court that convicted the prisoner.

Laws allow circumstantial evidence to be used in deciding a case "under the rubric of 'the judge's reasoning.'"

Third, the legal system has introduced long-term imprisonment - which was also traditionally not used in sharia law - under 'discretionary punishment.' Traditionalist judges, however, "continue to prefer corporal punishments ..." in sentencing. In 2008, the then Head of Judiciary Ayatollah Hashemi Shahroudi (considered a moderate) asked judges to carry out more corporal punishment and less imprisonment, because "long term imprisonment is expensive, is not effective, and prevents criminals from reintegrating into society"

Any objections?

2. Did the Ayatollah or the Iranian secret service sent any assassin to murder Rushdie? The fatwa was just a PR exercise. Rushdie was banished from Iran. That's all.

1. The revolutionary guards have no role in the Syrian conflict. The Assad government would have already won the conflict, had the revolutionary guards were on their side. They are stationed inside Iran

Prior to the Syrian war, Iran had between 2,000 and 3,000 IRGC officers stationed in Syria, helping to train local troops and managing supply routes of arms and money to neighboring Lebanon.

General Qa`ani -Senior officer of Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution – said: “If the Islamic Republic was not present in Syria, the massacre of civilians would have been twice as bad. Had physically and non-physically stopped the rebels from killing many more among the Syrian people.”

Iranian Revolutionary Guard soldiers, along with fellow Shi'ite forces from Hezbollah and members of Iran's Basij militia participated in the capture of Qusair from rebel forces on 9 June 2013. In 2014, Iran increased its deployment of IRGC in Syria

Yes. Iran is an Islamic nation. But unlike the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, they don't splurge their money to fund the Jihadis all over the world. They never interfere in the politics of other nations.

You've forgot that Washington's Obkom likes to use islamic radicals to destabilize their competitors. The notable examples are first and second chechen wars shouldn't be forgotten as examples of western intervention.

Oh, really? What about the Revolutionary Guards fighting in Syria? What about a fatwa proclaimed by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1988 requiring Salman Rushdie's execution for money reward (and which was reaffirmed by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in 2005)? 

Yes. Iran is an Islamic nation. But unlike the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, they don't splurge their money to fund the Jihadis all over the world. They never interfere in the politics of other nations.

Iran is declared a republic (and islamic at that), but don't let yourself get fooled by names or titles. The supreme power in Iran belongs to ayatollahs. Do you know who they are?

Wrong, Iran is a republic. It has legislative, judicial and executive bodies of power, while traditional sharia state is a theocratic monarchy. Iranian leaders are smart enough to keep radical elements outside their country.

After the 1979 upheaval of the Pahlavi Dynasty by the Islamic Revolution, the system was greatly altered. The legal code is now based on Shi'a Islamic law or sharia, although many aspects of civil law have been retained, and it is integrated into a civil law legal system

“I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being.” So there it is, straight from the lion’s mouth, as in US President Barack Obama.

The rest are details: deadly details, as in the US military remaining “at the core” of the exceptional worldview; the Pentagon reserving for itself “the power to launch unilateral attacks when America’s interests are directly threatened”; eight or nine proxy wars deployed in the immediate future with no end in sight; and the most startling admission – that the “fulcrum” of US foreign policy from now on will be to curb “aggression” by Russia and China.

Ok, Iran is a sharia law state, right? And right now it seems to be Russia's ally... How come?

Also, you talk about an irreparable degradation of society, but which society do you talk about

do you feel yourself a part thereof? If so, how about the title of this thread, i.e. about West (not East) invading Russia again?

It's not about russia, it's about dumb migration policy which slowly kills european nations. I would prefer to see any hostile society in europe, rather than another sharia state.

It seems that you haven't read my message properly. It's not a joke and I'd prefer to see some kind of Third Reich instead of these "soon to be sharia" states. It's just my choice between two evils, because this option won't cause any sort of irreparable degradation of society, unlike religion based platforms.

For the answer to all of your speculation, go here:

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/