Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Frosty

  1. I hope I was not offensive in the thread that you started about weight, that wasn't my intent at all and wanted to say so.

  2. I am right there with you brother. I was mainly referencing the other member whose post I commented on, so I wasn't directly or indirectly really my comments towards you but on the subject and other member at hand. I have been reluctant to contact a marja about this because I know that mut'ah (from what I have seen) is an accepted practice in Shi'i Islam whereas I am directly against the practice itself outright, all together.
  3. I think men, young and old, today need to stop being such pansies and show some self restraint for the good of their souls. I mean come on, sex for one is not that great, if it was then we wouldn't have to do it more than once. For two I don't think that the temptation is such that we should prescribe having sex with a prostitute under false pretenses and enter into a false marriage with said woman. It's called being a man and getting over it. The Muslim community out of any body should realize the importance of self-discipline, it's not that hard to not masturbate, I mean it's really not and it's completely absurd to go through these perverse loopholes as a means to relieve yourself. I mean, if you see an attractive woman, so what? Woopie de doo Basil! The more you sexualize the presence of women and strongly reinforce these notions with things like mut'ah the bigger the problem is going to become. You know what else is forbidden? Adultery and despite this guise of legality the practice of nikah mut'ah specifically for sex in response to masturbation is still adultery, in my opinion. You don't have any honest intentions with this woman, especially if said woman is a [Edited Out], it's strictly about sex and is in direct response to not being able to control your own self sexually. I don't see much difference between this and going out to a pub, picking up some Christian girl and having sex with her. The only difference I see is having this piece of paper that says "oh, yeah, we are married, see, it says so right here, so everythings good." It probably doesn't say in the contract "I'm marrying a [Edited Out] and or non-Muslim woman just so I can make sex with her because I am a child and can't control myself like a man," does it? It's a hollow charade and it's completely perverse. Not to mention the possibility of diseases (most prostitutes aren't that clean) and pregnancy. In short it's called being a man and being a Muslim man. If a person honestly can't help themselves and it's such a problem that it interferes with their daily life then they do indeed have a problem and should go seek counseling and therapy otherwise stop being a whiny baby because you can't have your candy. Go out, watch a movie, hangout with friends, read a book, smoke a nice cigar or pipe. There is millions of other things to be enjoyed other than sex and if you really want that female contact why not just talk to a woman? Hangout, be friends, why does it always have to be about sex? Why are women forever objects of sex? They are human, they have personalities, it is possible to enjoy the company of a woman without having sex with her or thinking about having sex with her. Shocking I know, but it is totally possible and what's more it's totally halal. Not to mention it could eventually lead to a legitimate relationship were one wouldn't need to consider going through these sick loopholes.
  4. That's awesome, her husbands a nut though, I would claim that wife with pride.
  5. Do you hear what you are saying? "Don't fall into the sin of masturbation perform mut'ah with a Christian girl or prostitute." This is why I don't like the practice of nikah mut'ah. It's a loophole for perversity. It openly condones what Islam forbids. It blatantly corrodes the sanctity of the marriage contract. Marry a harlot temporarily just to have sex with her indeed. That's a fine prescription against masturbation indeed.
  6. See, it's statments like this that make me ask, really? Do you really think Hitler was better than Bush? I don't like Bush and I don't/didn't support his policies either but to say he was better than Hitler is just outrageous. Even comparing him to Hitler, that in of itself, also is simply outrageous. I wouldn't comment this but this is the second comment I have seen like this. You have got to be kidding.
  7. Agreed and while I do find some of the modern practices of the Isma'ilis objectionable, or rather their non-practice of things crucial to the Islamic practice, historically I think and would venture to say that they, the Isma'ilis, were are brothers in Islam, which is why I think this hostility towards them is weird, especially given the Shi'i ummah's lot historically.

  8. It would first depend on how tall she is, what her previous weight was and how much weight she has gained. I personally don't like twigs, I like a woman, and women have curves, so I personally wouldn't mind it but there is most definately a difference between a brickhouse and castle though, if you know what I mean. ;) That's not a lot of weight at all, nothing to fret over at all sis.
  9. Jesus didn't fully fufill the the prophecy of the Jewish messiah yet Christians and Muslims still consider him to be the messiah. What's the difference?
  10. Why isn't Sayyid 'Ali-Muhammad of Shiraz (the Bab) al-Qa'im/Imam Madhi? Also why isn't Baha'u'llah the messenger the Bab talked about? Essentially why are the Baha'is wrong? What have the scolars said about the Baha'i faith? I know that in Iran Baha'is have long been persecuted and that even today Baha'i students can't go to school of higher learning, but why? Why exactly are they wrong?
  11. haha! All my avatars are just odd pictures I find online.

  12. I am ithna ashari however like I said in a thread I put that as my title in response to the "are Isma'ilis Muslims?" thread. I wanted to see how Isma'ilis are viewed and treated by the mainstream Shi'i community. Plus, I have a fascination with the assassins. No worries.

  13. The Revolt of the Cockroach People by Oscar Zeta Acosta.
  14. I will respond to your other comments later however I do want to say, I am not a "government worshipper." If you want to know my real politics are here you go (and others here). Politically I am extremely far left. I am fairly confident that even on here I have stated that I was a Communist (Marxist-Leninist). Though recently I have kind of shifted farther left in the Communist movement moving towards the Left Communists. I have never been a registered voter in either America or Europe. I have never participated in a bourgeois election. I have worked with several groups within the Leftist movement. I have worked with RCP (Revolutionary Communist Party), the ABCF (Anarchist Black Cross Federation), and have recently been working and talking to party members of the ICC (International Communist Current). I also was going to go down to Mexico to help the Zapatistas. To give you more context of my views originally after 9/11, I saw the event as Ward Churchill (though I wouldn't ever I agree with his assessment, more I agree with that statement in regards to 9/11) said, that it was "chickens coming home to roost." I saw this as an extreme Muslim response to the foreign policies of the United States. This was also when I still believed in the modern use of propagande par le fait (propaganda of the deed). I have since pretty much came to the conclusion that propaganda by the deed can't be used effectively in the modern world and considering the Islamic legality of the event in terms in terms of rulings on war, I now see it as simply as a tragic massacre. That is how I saw 9/11. Which is why I have a hard time buying into your al-Qaeda=CIA theory. The U.S. has backed the Northern Alliance who is fighting the Taliban. The Taliban are comrades (in a way) with al-Qaeda.
  15. I can say from my own personal experince with Britains "finest," that this doesn't surprise me. Bunch of slack-jawed idiots with badges.
  16. I think that "Islamophobia," if it really exists comes from Medieval-Crusader period in European history. Collectively not much has changed in the European-American-White consciousness concerning Islam, Muhammad (pbuh), Muslims, the Middle-East and Arabs ("brown people"). All has been seen as violent, oppressive, evil, profane, uncivilized and so on. If you read works written by Europeans in the Middle Ages, whether they fought in the crusades, were scholars or were a member of the clergy, it's not that much different from what you hear today from conservative, racist, and Christian sources both in the Americas and Europe. I think it's this historical baggage in combination with ignorance and recent events (political, economic, social, etc.) which causes this "Islamophobia." I think the way Muslims can most constructively fight this is through debate, teaching and reasoning. Not violence. If we as a community speak, get out there and spread the real message of Islam and show how real, hard-working, devout, oridinary Muslims live, then all this will just dissolve and will be shown as hollow attacks. It's hard to say Muslims are violent if we don't behave violently. It's hard to criticize Islam if our scholars and clergymen actively debate our opponents and shows that what they are saying is nonsense and inaccurate and wrong. We should use al-Qu'ran, the hadiths, our texts, our history as potent weapons in this ideaological struggle. We need to show that we will not take this and how we will not take this is we get out, speak and spread the truth. We need to engage in what Valdimir Lenin would call an ideological struggle with these European-Christian-Crusaders. It's through this route that we as a community can speak out, be heard and erase this. If we act violently this will only hurt us. Violence can be used but only when necessary, only in self-defense and real, objective oppression.
  17. Oh, really am I? Neither did I. No, it's not "clearly," an inside job and for every "truther," out there waving his tin foil hat on his soap box there is a skeptic debunking you're theories, which is why I am not really inclined to debate this with you, though I will comment on what you have said, you can go right ahead and bring up the Gulf of Tonkin and operation Northwoods and all this but I would like to point out that, all these comparisons have been made before, have been addressed before and debunked before. The Gulf of Tonkin incident can't really be compared to 9/11. Well, indeed, what about it? It was one of over thirty plans purposed in the Cuban Project and the fact that America didn't go through with it during the height of the Cold War, during the Kennedy administration and when accountability of the government and it's leaders wasn't as high as it is today, says something. It was President JFK himself that nixed the operation. A lot of things were suggested and the comparisons to be made to 9/11 are limited. The Soviet Union and Cuba were states and the Soviet Union was a super power. Al-Qaeda is just a militant guerrilla group that has no real connection to any one state. Also, this operation wasn't going to involve thousands of civilian casualties and wasn't going to involve a building on American soil that is worth billions of dollars and is a major economic point in NYC/America. Not to mention the deaths of law enforcement, firefighters, those who got caught in the mess and indirectly to others. Operation Northwoods was never carried out and again was one of over thirty plans purposed under the Cuban Project. You're view of them isn't very accurate. Atta was a University student, who went to both Egypt and Germany for schooling and was an engineering major, for example. Not only that but some of them trained to become pilots and learned how to fly a plane and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to hijack a plane mid-flight and then fly it straight into one of the tallest buildings in NYC. Al-Qaeda had already bombed that place in 1993 with a car bomb, which says to me that they had interest in the buildings prior to 9/11. Not only that, you only need 2 people, who can pilot the plane and the others for muscle men to keep the hijackers in control of the situation, which again doesn't take a rocket scientist. They went through pilot training and with said training it wouldn't be that to difficult to hijack a plane mid-flight and then fly it into one of the tallest buildings in NYC. They weren't "made to withstand such an attack," because an attack like that hadn't happened on American soil prior to 9/11, even in planning on what could happen that hasn't happened yet the U.S. government and military didn't think an attack like this would originate in America, rather it would becoming from without, not within. Yeah, because communication within a militant guerrilla group actively engaged in fighting a state is just unthinkable, right? Passing a plan down to the operatives who would be doing it would be impossible, right? The official story never said Osama bin Laden "carried out," this rather he was the leader of al-Qeada who planned and committed this attack which is why America went into Afghanistan because that's were they were. I will address this below. They were conducting drills on attacks that could conceivably happen against the United States. The WTC had already been attacked in 1993 so it wouldn't be a stretch for it to be seen as a place where an attack could happen. Also, there was a drill which had the Pentagon as a possible target but it was abandoned because the Defense officials said it was to improbable. The Pentagon said it was "too unrealistic." Not only that but with the drills themselves, the assumption was that the planes would be coming from a different country and could hold bio-chemical weapons, not that the planes themselves would be used as a weapon and not that these planes would originate in America or North America for that matter. NORAD was training to respond to attacks coming from outside the country, not within, which says to me that this made it easier for the hijackers to carry this attack out. The drills themselves, while they are similar to what happened on 9/11 however they differ in important ways and signify nothing other than the Pentagon thought that an attack on it was "too unrealistic." I have already seen Loose Change and it has already been debunked since it came out by skeptics. All of this has been addressed before by other skeptics. You're not presenting anything new. You're misrepresenting these people, I would recommend researching their backgrounds. So to you, would the Vietcong just be forest people? Would you say that the Tet Offensive that they carried out (highly successfully too) was beyond their capabilities because they were just simple forest/mountain folk? Guerrilla groups are can be extremely effective and extremely successful. What have you been reading? It wasn't "almost a carbon copy," at all and again these men were not "cave men." You do realize that the loss of WTC7 was a huge loss on his part do you not? 700 million to rebuild the building, 504 million to finish the interior spaces of the building and 1.4 billion to repair the Verizon building damaged by the buildings collapse. All this talk of Larry Silverstein has also been addressed before. He even has to pay 120 million dollars in lease payments per year even with Ground Zero remaining empty. To rebuild the WTC complex it would take 9 billion dollars. No, you really have no clue about geo-politics. Afghanistan is not a major source of oil in the Middle-East, that is Iraq, America started out in Afghanistan and then went into Iraq. I have read were the estimated oil production in Afghanistan in 2003 was 0 barrels per day. I also never said the Americans didn't try to exploit the situation after the fact. Also, how does the rise in heroin cultivation benefit the U.S.? The opium trade that exists in Afghanistan gives money to the Taliban which is who America is fighting against and said trade is a problem for the U.S. which is widely reported on in the American media. Not only that but if you hadn't noticed America's national debt is in the trillions and this is a direct result of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not only that but given the history of Afghanistan it wouldn't be a smart move to try to fight a war there. Even the Soviets, tried and failed. They were there for 10 years and even had support from Communists within the country that had control of the government and still lost. I've read that the losses caused by the destruction of 9/11 was around 9.3 billion dollars. Combine that with all the money this war has took and you will see that this wasn't a smart business venture and on that basis alone it seems improbable to me that the United States carried out a false flag operation that hit America this hard. America is in a economic situation that a lot of people have compared to the stock crash of 1929, which was the worst in the Nation's history. This hasn't really been a win for America, not economically or politically, infact I am willing to bet that America will meet the same fate as the Soviets. I have heard from people in the American military, high ups, say that the Taliban have only reorganized and that they haven't been defeated and could be stronger than they were when America first went in and that America's mistake was just claiming the cities. The war isn't over you know. Also, saying it lead to "billions of defense contracts," is an exaggeration. America may have gotten some benefits from 9/11 and may have exploited the situation but I think all of this is after the fact and 9/11 itself was a tremendous loss economically and was a major attack against America. No, Occam's razor in terms of this event would mean that story that is simpler, is probably the most accurate. NORAD had been downsized prior to 9/11 and none were on domestic duty on 9/11. NORAD also had a protocol for dealing with a hijacking situation. Thinking that hijackers would use the plane as a guided suicide missile wasn't in NORAD or the FFA's protocol. No one planned for this because this kind of attack because it had never happened before. Even the drills point to this, that you keep talking about. Not only that NEADS was notified of flight 175 as it was crashing into the building which means that no one could have responded to that situation. NEADS was also informed of flight 93 after it crashed. The most time NEADS had to respond to these hijackings was 9 minutes. Boston Center air traffic received transmissions in which the hijackers said they were going to land the planes. At 8:46:36 they had F-16s looking for American 11 and at 8:51 it hit the WTC. The plane that crashed into the pentagon, NEADS found out about that hijacking four minutes before it crashed. There is no way NORAD or any other group could have responded to these attacks, given the protocols in place at the time, the size of NORAD at the time and how the operatives carried out the attack. They turned of the transponders in the plane off which would make it difficult to locate the plane because they would no longer been seen as radar blips in a given location, not to mention the problems with bureaucracy and so on, all of which inhibited responding to this specific attack. The inside job theory makes it seems like everything in America works up to optimum efficiency and that it knows all and sees all and can do all which simply is not the case at all, far from it. Again, I stress that an attack like this had never been committed against America before and that even the drills being performed by NORAD assumed the plane would becoming into North America from a different country not originating in. NORAD protocols only addressed traditional hijackings which this wasn't. The Pentagon drills were even abandoned because the Pentagon didn't think it was in the realm of possibility! The official story is a lot simpler, more backed and so on, thus if I was using Occam's razor, it would be the most accurate story. The conspiracy theory is vastly more complex and involves this, that and the other thing. Complexity to me, when it's person to person usually indicates the person is lying because they need complexity to support their story. Again, I don't really want to debate this with you because it would be a waste of my time however I did respond to this post because I have the time and wanted to point out, that's it's not cut and cry as you make it seem, it's not an open secret and that all of these "facts" and theories have been addressed before. You're just another "truther," playing from the "truther," playbook.
  18. There is even a website (which has been used, see the helicopter video scandal) called Wikileaks, which prime purpose is to make it easy for people to leak sensitive/secretive information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks
  19. I wasn't "ridiculing," Alex Jones (don't be so sensational), I said one declarative statement that was of my own opinion. Stop jock riding. His "theories," (if they can even be called as such) aren't worth my time, which is why and how people like him continue to exist is because people with intelligence (like me) don't take him seriously enough to counter-argue his glorified talking points. Not only this, but every single "theory," that is put forth by the 9/11 "truth," movement has always been met with another theory that totally disproves the aforementioned theory, so I don't really feel inclined to waste my time arguing about Jones' "theories." This is all coming from a man, who once told members of the RCP that the Socialist revolution that took place in Russia in 1917 was bank rolled by Western capitalist powers or something equally as idiotic. If memory serves, I think he also was the one that claimed that the American government unleashed swine flu. The "inside job," theory to me, sounds highly improbable. I once saw a documentary in which a scholar said for the "inside job," theory to work, the minimum amount of people it would have took for 9/11 to happen would have been around right around 4 to 5,000 people. You're telling me that, that many American government employees would have kept their mouth about THE worst domestic attack on American soil to date? The same government who couldn't tell the difference between their hole and a hole in the ground? Come on, I don't give the U.S. government that much credit, these are the same people you see at the mall picking their noses and trying to find shoes with lights in them. It's more probable and a lot easier for me to believe that 19 al-Qaeda operatives, learned to fly a plane straight then committed an attack. I mean, I would give the 9/11 "truth," movement more credit if their theories weren't so absurd. I mean seriously, why is so hard to believe that "official," story happened? What started your disbelief? Is it because (to you) if you accept the "official," story then you support America and it's government and it's policies by proxy? I mean seriously why is so hard to believe that a militant guerrilla group committed a guerrilla act of war? But yet it's easier to believe that thousands of workers and the U. S. government pulled all these shenanigans with everyone keeping quiet before and after and no one noticed anything suspicious happening at all? Come on, give me a break. I mean it was and is an extremely unpopular war, it has caused immense distrust in and hatred toward the government, it drained the economy, it left President Bush's approval rating at 22% which is one if not the lowest rating a President has had since Gallup started polling people in 1938, it ruined our standing among other Nations. I mean there is no upside to this story at all. Ever heard of Occam's razor? I don't sound silly at all, I'm not the one floundering about trying argue. Using the Aga Khan as an insult against me/my statement, really? I mean really?
  20. Not necessarily misleading people more I was interested in what type of response I would get from the mainstream Shi'a (Usooli/Akhbari) community. I was inspired by the "are the Isma'ilis muslim?" thead and I have always been interested in Isma'ilism and Isma'ili history and I think it's weird that the Shi'a (a minority in itself) mainstream would cast out this group (I don't intend to get into a debate about it here), though I do understand the history. Whether or not I am an Isma'ili or not is irrelevant as far as this conversation goes and the comparison for your argument is shaky and silly.
  21. I would kill him and eat his heart to obtain his power and then rip his spine out.
  22. No, why exactly are you asking this? Because I'm a German-Jew, who is a Communist, who hates Hitler? Me, oh, my who could guess why I would have any reason to hate him or those like him. White racialists/racists/fascist retards aren't merely indentifying themselves racially, ethnically and culturally, to say that is a joke and if you truly believe that about people who go around talking about how great it is to be Aryan then you are very naive. These people believe in race superiority and openly target and attack non-Whites, go online, there is hundreds of videos of skinheads beating up minorities (a lot of videos are from Russia). I am against this (White racism/Fascism) yes. This however doesn't make me a Zionist, I consider Zionism to be (as Stalin put it) racist imperialism. You're getting a little ridiculous here, but do be do, you are always rather ridiculous anyway. I'm not a Zionist however I don't think they're this boogeyman either.
  23. Who says I'm not a Bohra? Whos says I'm Ismaiili for the matter? Besides my title.
  24. Frosty

    Quotation Forum

    "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"
  • Create New...