It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Islamofascists shut down 944 Thai Schools !!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
Pick a country where there are seperatists using force...and you'll find an islamic armed force at its center.


waco
no islamic movement behind it

the white nationalist movement, nothing islamic there

KKK, plenty of good ol' christian boys but no muslims


yes, a handful of christian extremist groups among thousands of muslim ones certainly validates your theory.
:shk:


it isn't about the RELIGION, that's my point
wackjobs will use ANY AND ALL justification for their crazy ideas
the most unstable regions in the world just happen to be majority muslim right now
when the unstable regions were christian, we had christians doing pretty much the same stuff

the USA is majority christian, so the majority of it's armed extremist groups are christian

in countries that are majority muslim, the majority of the armed extremist groups are muslim




posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   
This does not surprise me, it should it surprise anyone else.

The first thing that radicals need to get/maintain power is to keep the mass's uneducated.

In this way, they cannot/will not argrue will extremest religious teaching-as they have no formal education to allow them to think and make decissions for themselves.

In this way, religious leaders gain power and control over the mass's.

This is when they-IMO- start to act like radicals/terrorits.

Some the mass's only have "that" word coming to them, they believe it without reservation.

It seems to me, ignorance is a neccessary ingrediant to Muslium extreamists/terrorits.



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   
If you read the thread, what emerges is that the Thai government won't allow the ethnic Malays to keep their own languages. It is perhaps this that impels the radicals to attack the schools.

Of course, you are free to deny all the facts you like, just as so many other posters in this thread have chosen to do.



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
To blame USA for the deaths in Afganistan on the Russian invasion......Is completely whack. The USA supplied arms to kick the Russians out. I will agree this caused deaths. But if Russia did not invade then none of those deaths would have happened.

I will call that the USA invaded Iraq defense that many people talk about here. When defending people blowing up civilians in markets in Iraq. If the USA wasn't there then none of this would have happened. Well Russia invaded, and the USA got to use Afganis as pawns. Just like the Pakistani Government intelligence controlled parts of the Taliban.

Just like
Iran uses hezbollah as its pawn in Lebanon.
Israel is somewhat a pawn of the US
The Palestianian's are a war cry of suffering, but they cause a good bit of suffering on others and their own people by never chosing a peaceful way to protest. Always the victim.
Russia ferments trouble in Georgia and cause a breakaway of a portion of the country.
China still occupies Tibet.
Why is Britian still in Gibraltar?
China massacres thousands of its own people in Tinamen Square, and is seen as a peaceful government. Its own people that were protesting peacefully. That is pure evil.


You also blamed the deaths in Cambodia on the USA.......Ahhhhhh You mean those Soviet supplied weapons. Ok.

The USA went into the Vietnam as a cold war policy. Two countries were internationally viewed and accepted, and the USA went into to stop the spread of communism. The communist countries supplied many many weapons to North Vietnam. So, by your logic then 1/2 the blame of the Vietnamese war and Cambodia should fall on China and the Soviet Union. But you put all the blame on the USA. That is skewing the facts for your glorious view of anti-America. Face it. Who supplied the Sandinista's in Nicaragua? Oh, yeah the soviet union. What about the put down of people trying to escape communism in Czechoslovkia and Hungary....Oh, yeah those weren't bad against the USA.

The 11 million number of deaths in China seems to be glossed over. 11 freaking million. Wow!


I agree that the Thai school closings are probably about people pissed off. But don't bomb them. How about a peaceful protest. Did that ever hurt? Teaching your childen about a protest that does not have blowing up there school might be a good idea.



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by sbob
To blame USA for the deaths in Afganistan on the Russian invasion......Is completely whack. The USA supplied arms to kick the Russians out.


Factually incorrect. The US supplied arms to destabilise the Marxist government of Afghanistan and draw the Russians in. The Russians were invited in by the Afghan government, which was losing the battle. And I was merely pointing out that the US does not have clean hands in this matter, not putting all the blame on them. However, without the US arming and training the mujahadeen... well, imagine a world without the mujahadeen... pleasant, isn't it?


Why is Britian still in Gibraltar?


Because we've been there since 1704. Ever been there? I have. Lots of Brits living there. Unless you want them all to leave? I mean, over 300 years there, the statute of limitations has run out by now, surely? That's longer than the US has existed. Perhaps you'd like to leave and give the land back to the Native American tribes?

BBC history of Gibraltar


China massacres thousands of its own people in Tinamen Square, and is seen as a peaceful government. Its own people that were protesting peacefully. That is pure evil.


I don't see it as especially peaceful. Just less of a threat to world peace than the US.


You also blamed the deaths in Cambodia on the USA.......Ahhhhhh You mean those Soviet supplied weapons. Ok.


No, I mean the fact that the US supported Pol Pot to get back at the Vietnamese, who actually got rid of him! They invaded to stop the slaughter of year zero, and the US responded by supporting the killers of thousands upon thousands of Cambodians. Come on, you don't think I'd say anything I can't back up, do you?

US support for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge


The USA went into the Vietnam as a cold war policy. Two countries were internationally viewed and accepted, and the USA went into to stop the spread of communism.


And communism is so evil it's worth killing between three and six million people? did you know, by the way, that Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist who thought that the US would support him in his struggle against the colonial French, and that he took parts of the US constitution to use in the North Vietnamese version? However, I really don't know enough about the history of the war to truly argue the point. I'm happy to admit that. However, the US went in and tore up the country, there is no denying that simple fact, and was propping up a nasty little colonial oligarchy, a holdover from French colonialist days.


But you put all the blame on the USA.


No, I was simply replying to the post that tried to refute my point about countries invaded by the US.


That is skewing the facts for your glorious view of anti-America. Face it. Who supplied the Sandinista's in Nicaragua? Oh, yeah the soviet union.


Ah. Yes. It's interesting. The US decided to wage a terrorist war by proxy against the Sandinista government, which had overthrown yet another brutal dictator backed by the US. Here's how one leading commentator describes what happened:


Well, to talk of Nicaragua as a security threat is a bit like asking what threat Luxembourg poses to the Soviet Union... It is quite true that Nicaragua is now Soviet-armed and heavily armed. And the reason is that it is being attacked by a superpower which has specifically blocked every other source of supply. For example, up until the May embargo last year twenty percent of Nicaraguan trade was with the Soviet bloc. Prior to that, its arms were coming from everywhere. We then blocked the arms from everywhere else. As we intensified the war, they do exactly what the U.S. government wants them to do; namely, to divert resources from the social reforms which we really fear, and they turn them towards militarization. The idea that Nicaragua could attack -- I might add that the countries of Latin America regard this as hysterical lunacy.


Taken from this lively debate.

For more details, see Teaching Nicaragua a lesson.


What about the put down of people trying to escape communism in Czechoslovkia and Hungary....Oh, yeah those weren't bad against the USA.

The 11 million number of deaths in China seems to be glossed over. 11 freaking million. Wow!


Well, you know, if I were dealing with Chinese banging on about how wonderful their country is and how everyone who disagreed with them was evil and stupid, I might be arguing against China. As it is, there are a lot of chest-beating Americans on this board, so I'm trying to counterbalance their tendency to mythologise their country and whitewash its considerable and malign influence on the rest of the world.

[edit on 29-11-2006 by rich23]



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I definetly disagree with murdering teachers. Would it not hgave been wiser to instead use the money they spent on explosives and arms to simpy pay the teachers to protest along side with them? Or use the money to hire teachers that could teach the language?

Well, thats sad. Thats why I thank God everyday I was born in the USA.

I believe you should change the title of the thread NumberCruncher because it has been proven to be misleading and bias not only by the news article itself, but by testimony from native citizens of the region.

[edit on 11/29/2006 by DYepes]



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

Factually incorrect. The US supplied arms to destabilise the Marxist government of Afghanistan and draw the Russians in. The Russians were invited in by the Afghan government, which was losing the battle. And I was merely pointing out that the US does not have clean hands in this matter, not putting all the blame on them.



Your statement also seems to be not completely factually correct.


Khan is killed in a communist coup. Nur Mohammad Taraki, one of the founding members of the Afghan Communist Party, takes control of the country as president, and Babrak Karmal is named deputy prime minister. They proclaim independence from Soviet influence, and declare their policies to be based on Islamic principles, Afghan nationalism and socioeconomic justice. Taraki signs a friendship treaty with the Soviet Union. But a rivalry between Taraki and Hafizullah Amin, another influential communist leader, leads to fighting between the two sides.
news hour

American Ambassador Adolph Dubs is killed. The United States cuts off assistance to Afghanistan. A power struggle between Taraki and Deputy Prime Minister Hafizullah Amin begins. Taraki is killed on Sept. 14 in a confrontation with Amin supporters.

The USSR invades Afghanistan on Dec. 24 to bolster the faltering communist regime. On Dec. 27, Amin and many of his followers are executed. Deputy Prime Minister Babrak Karmal becomes prime minister. Widespread opposition to Karmal and the Soviets spawns violent public demonstrations.


Nothing about being asked to invade. Eighteen months transpired between the creation of the Mujahadeen and the invasion, aproxmently 12 months until the Russian invasion.



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Im sorry I just couldn't reach the end of this thread. If I see "Islamofascism" said one more time I think I may cry then scream.

PLEASEEEEE!@!!#%$$%!@!@ for the sake of ALL of us, READ!!!! find out what fascism is. If islamic ways relate to this at ALL then MAYBE you might have a possible point.

Islam is a religion, fascism is a political viewpoint. So your saying that these muslims are fascist. Read what islam is about, read what fascism is about. If those two can co-exist and work, I'll drop whatever I'm doing and jump off a cliff.

Islam and fascism would NEVER work. Fascism is like having business have equal or more say in the way society functions. The rich capitalistist control government and business the same, thats fascism. First off, how can islam hate capitalism, yet love fascism? Thats simply not possible. Capitalism has more a chance to lead to fascism then any other economic system. Why? Because once the rich are rich enough, they often misuse their funds, and want more power. Thats when they start meddling in government. Business coexists with government to futher their personal benefit.

Islam is a religion with guidelines, and would completely interfer with fascism.



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   
I am glad you pointed these facts out Grim. I would have done so myself, but am fed up with having to deal with willful ignorance and the attempt to spread it as fact and THE TRUTH at any cost.

Lets see solutions solutions... how about peacekeepers? We can send in peacekeepers, setup a location for the leaders of the opposing factions to bring up their claims with international insight and visibility? In this way the oppressors are forced to allow the oppressed to speak while at the same time possibly being able to calm down violence? Concurrently we can have leaflets and books being handed out to the citizenry explaining how a possible solution can be achieved peacefully?

If I am not mistaken, guns and explosives do not have the ability to teach or educate. Books spread information, information that may have been deprived previously, while at the same time stimulating the mind to focus on goals.

Once you put a gun into someones hand, the only thing they can think to do is who and when they are going to kill.



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Islamic extremists - the modern barbarians



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Islam is a religion, fascism is a political viewpoint.


While I sympathise with this position, I have to respectfully disagree.

I actually think that fascism has rather more to do with authoritarianism and its attendant authoritarian personality than a well-thought-out political doctrine. Fascism is named after the fasces, the symbolic flails of Roman political authority, and while it is true that Mussolini said that fascism is more properly called corporatism because it marks the point where corporate and state power intersect, its appeal is largely to the psychologically insecure who want a powerful authority figure to be in control of their state and their destiny. Further, Wilhelm Reich, in his Mass Psychology of Fascism, notes that the motive force of fascism is a mysticism that derives from repressing the sexual side of one's being.

There are aspects of extreme Islam that cater to these precise emotional components and that parallel fascism quite closely: and the same could be said of extreme Christianity.

People have been arguing over what fascism is, exactly, for decades. There are those who would define it strictly as a political creed, which, within a Marxist analysis, must fulfil certain structural criteria. For me, the emotional appeal to authoritarianism and mysticism is what counts, and this is why I think the US is almost all the way to being in the grip of full-blown fascism.

There's quite a good breakdown of the 14 warning signs here.



  1. powerful and continuing nationalism
  2. disdain for human rights
  3. identification of enemies/scapegoats as unifying cause
  4. supremacy of the military
  5. rampant sexism
  6. controlled mass media
  7. obsession with natural security
  8. religion and government intertwined
  9. protection of corporate power
  10. suppression of labour power
  11. disdain for intellectualism
  12. obsession with crime and punishment
  13. cronyism and corruption
  14. fraudulent elections


There are elements of this with which I'd quibble. It's interesting that there are 14 points, because one of the defining works in this field is Umberto Eco's Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt, which attempts to sieve out the essentials of fascism and discover what he calls "ur-fascism" from the particulars of its various historical manifestations. He also kicks off with a wonderful quote from Orwell, which I think you'll like, as it sums up rather nicely some of the objections to the term "Islamofascism":


Fascism is a fairly difficult concept to define, the more so since the word itself is so widely used to attack any idea. Orwell summed up the matter well as long ago as 1944:

It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

Yet underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning. To begin with, it is clear that there are very great differences, some of them easy to point out and not easy to explain away, between the régimes called Fascist and those called democratic. Secondly, if ‘Fascist’ means ‘in sympathy with Hitler’, some of the accusations I have listed above are obviously very much more justified than others. Thirdly, even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.

But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.

["What is Fascism?" George Orwell]


Damn, but I just love Orwell. His clarity of thought and expression shames us all. And he's funny with it.

Anyway, Eco's fourteen points are significantly different from the ones quoted above. I think I prefer them in some ways, but it is interesting to note that US society fulfils many of them, as with the fourteen points listed earlier.


  1. the cult of tradition
  2. the rejection of modernism
  3. the cult of action for its own sake
  4. critical thought is a sign of modernism, therefore bad; and
  5. disagreement is treason, and a sign of diversity
  6. ur-fascism derives from individual or social frustration
  7. to people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country
  8. the followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies
  9. life is lived for struggle
  10. elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak
  11. in such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero
  12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters
  13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say
  14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak


You might disagree with whether the US fulfils these criteria. You might, for example, say that the US is not elitist. I would point out some salient and unavoidable facts: the development of a dynastic elite, of which the apotheosis is the Bush family. You could look here for a perspective on the development of US elites. I would say also that the idea that "anyone can make it in America through hard work", is not borne out by the statistics, which show that for the overwhelming majority, the income bracket you're born into is where you stay. A useful paper to restore perspective is Rags to Riches? The American Dream is Less Common in the US than Elsewhere.

So in the US we have the myth of Horatio Alger colliding with the grim realities of life in Outsourcing America, which collision produces social frustration and contempt for the weak. If the dollar collapses, as the currency collapsed in Germany in the late twenties, I'd say you're looking at the ideal opportunity for some strongman figure to step in and take the reins, and it'll be "yee-HAAA!" into a new and uniquely American form of full-blown fascism.

I'd say that looking at either set of points, the US scores highly. But then (although I haven't been there, unlike the US) it looks as though, say, Iran would score similarly with a minor tweak here and there (for example, to people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to share the same religion).

[edit on 29-11-2006 by rich23]



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedGolem

Your statement also seems to be not completely factually correct.



Oops. Well, at least someone round here checks things for themselves. Thank you for the correction. I think my more general point - that the US deliberately drew the USSR into a conflict that it could only lose - withstands this correction, but I'm happy to have errors of fact picked up.

And, considering the amount I've posted on this and other threads, I think I'm holding my end of the argument up reasonably well.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 12:07 AM
link   
I know that its never really been defined, which is why I tend to lean toward mussolinis definition of it. The reason being is his system is the one which became popular. The Nazis were slightly different, but still they had many qualities that are similar.

Anyway, my point is that sexism, cronyism, corruption and influence of media hardly make fascism. If you want to define a system, you have to compare it to other systems which are well defined. Or find the difference between two systems that are unknown as to why they are different.

Tell me what the difference between Nazism and Fascism were? There were some obviously. Fascism seems to be that money rules. Elections mean nothing, religion means nothing, only money means anything. Material value is what matters in fascism. He who has the money has the power. In democracy everyone has power with voting, regardless of money. In communism, everyone is equal regardless of money, but instead of being equal in just rights, they are equal in money and everything else. They are taking the equal idea of democracy to an extreme. Capitalism with democratic republic is the united states (suppose to be). We vote, we have certain unalienable rights, and we have unrestricted business growth.

When you end up with capitalism without democracy, you have fascism. All you have to do is have free business then take away the vote and it fits fascism pretty well.

Sure sexism and everything else are factors, but they just aren't important factors. The way the system works has nothing to do with the people who run it. Communism as a system is equality. Communism in reality is many poor and a few rich who dictate over it.

All in all, the power hungry individuals who run the system, do not make the system itself. Fascism needs to be looked at without the idea that its strictly for creating elitist power holders.

The system of fascism is made to have business and government work as one as a way to benefit everyone. In the United States, it was meant to be that business would have no reason to involve itself in government, thus avoid ever having fascism. It did so by creating a government that would simply protect rights and have no other purpose.

OK I need to go to sleep, but my point is that there are basic principles as to what the differences between systems are. The major differences in systems are economical, rights, and powers of government. Everything else varies with the people who run the system.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 03:10 AM
link   
GR - I think you're trying to find clear-cut distinctions where things really are a lot more slippery, and ignoring the emotional appeal of fascism is a mistake. Look at what happens on these boards. Look out for people who talk about the US sticking up for freedom and democracy, but, when it comes down to it, come down hard on those people who actually exercise their freedoms of expression to dissent with the status quo. Those people are authoritarians, and they are fascism's core demographic.

Even today (though the day when this view is obsolete may not be far off) government occurs through the consent of the governed, whether that consent be active or passive. If enough people think, no, this is stupid, I'm not standing for this any more, then institutions fall.

The trick of government then, is to either persuade people that there is no alternative, or that they actually like what's going on.

It is a mistake, IMO, to ignore the emotional appeals of fascism. This is why I continually come back to the question of authoritarianism. The reverence for the flag, which is, actually, just a piece of cloth; the willingness to bash outsider groups; the glorification of military might... these are not dry, theoretical concepts. They are the emotional peg on which totalitarianism is hung.

Even by Mussolini's restrictive definition of fascism, the US is a fascist state. Corporations control the government through campaign contributions, think tanks and lobby groups. They are where the big concentrations of economic power reside.


Originally posted by grimreaper797
... my point is that sexism, cronyism, corruption and influence of media hardly make fascism.


I think I said that I didn't fully agree with either set of criteria I posted. However, control of the media (which is certainly the case in the US) is a pre-requisite of fascist control of the population. It allows the powers that be to, for example, create outsider hate groups through coining the term "Islamofascism". It allows the creation of enemies like Saddam Hussein, Chavez and Castro, who on rational inspection are far too puny to be a threat to the US, but necessary mobilisers of useful emotions in the masses.

The central element of propaganda is repetition. Tell people something enough times, and it becomes true, particularly for those of a suggestible nature. I think an interesting psychology paper might be written to see if there's a correlation between suggestibility (the extent to which someone is susceptible to the induction of a hypnotic trance) and indicators of an authoritarian personality (see link on a previous post in this thread). At any rate, repetition is the soul of propaganda. Therefore, try to notice the themes and memes that are being repeated in popular culture at any given time, and you'll be able to discern things about the society in which you live.


If you want to define a system, you have to compare it to other systems which are well defined. Or find the difference between two systems that are unknown as to why they are different.


If only it were that simple. The trouble is, people tend to view things along ideological lines that colour their perceptions. Many historians who study fascism must fit it into a Marxist framework, because that's what they know. I approach it from a more psychological perspective, because that's what I find interesting. There are, however, some interesting markers which I've already noted in my previous post.

One I would add is this: fascism is a driver of imperialism. Now, America (as articulated by its political elites) has maintained that it is not an empire and that it has no imperial ambitions. This is patently untrue, however, as a clear-eyed examination of the history of Central and South America shows. The difference with US imperialism, or more properly hegemony, is that outright conquest of the neighbour states is eschewed in favour of ensuring that elite control of those states is maintained, and that those elites owe allegiance to the US. That means that the US has preferential access to resources and is allowed to repatriate profits. If you look at the history of each of the countries in the region over the last century, a pattern repeats itself: when the economic usefulness of a state to the hegemon is threatened, the US takes action, either in the form of sending troops, or through a coup. This is the consistent pattern that US political elites try to dress up as the quest for "freedom" and "democracy".

This is Newspeak. In case you don't know what that is, Orwell, in 1984, made explicit the connection between a rich and vivid language, and the ability to think. Newspeak was the ever-onward quest to restrict the English language to the point where certain concepts simply couldn't be articulated because the words to formulate them no longer existed. A part of this process was the ability of words to mean their opposite. In the case cited above, "freedom" and "democracy" mean "slavery" and "government by death squad".


Tell me what the difference between Nazism and Fascism were?


Nazism is a sub-set of fascism. Remember that the words "National Socialism" are the core of Nazism, and this is sometimes used by the right wing to claim that fascism is not of the right.

I would argue that it's all about authoritarianism. You can have communism without authoritarianism, but you cannot have fascism without authoritarianism.


Fascism seems to be that money rules.


If that were merely true, then how do you distinguish the US from a fascist state? No, the fasces were symbols of power. Power and its naked use are the core of fascism. Money is an enabler of power, not power itself.


In democracy everyone has power with voting, regardless of money.


That very much depends on having someone to vote for. Again, look at the comments on these boards. How often do you see someone bemoaning the fact that there really isn't anyone to get behind politically? If the corporations control both parties, they control the whole game.


We vote, we have certain unalienable rights, and we have unrestricted business growth.
I think you'll find that those rights are being alienated right now, actually.


Sure sexism and everything else are factors, but they just aren't important factors.


It depends on what you mean by "important". They might not be "central to the project", but if, as I maintain, they're a psychological consequence of fascist thinking, then they are important indicators of what's going on.


Fascism needs to be looked at without the idea that its strictly for creating elitist power holders.


Unfortunately, if that were the case, then fascism might, for example tolerate unions and acknowledge human rights. These are, however, consistent features of fascism as it's been found across history so far.


The system of fascism is made to have business and government work as one as a way to benefit everyone.


No.. for the benefit of only a very few, in fact.


In the United States, it was meant to be that business would have no reason to involve itself in government, thus avoid ever having fascism. It did so by creating a government that would simply protect rights and have no other purpose.


You might like to do some research into the topic of the legal personhood of corporations. This is what the founding fathers, or at least several of them, perceived as a real danger, and rightly so, because corporations can pursue policies that an individual would be locked up for. I'd go into this more but I have to sleep, too.

[edit on 30-11-2006 by rich23]



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 05:40 AM
link   
So far all I've seen are attempts to excuse terrorist acts committed by Islamofascists. The apologists do not even touch the subject of Islamic fascism, to them it can be justified if Bush did that, or if the IRA did this, and so forth.
There is no justification for any terrorism. The IRA was mostly an isolated problem and does not compare to the global impact that Islamic-based terrorism has had to this day.
When was the last time IRA members decided to hijack a plane?
Not many...but there are several hijacking incidents involving islamofacsists.
But I suppose it’s okay since they’re ‘freedom fighters’ according to a terrorist sympathizer.


On topic: The excuse I see here is that because Thailand's authorities refuse to recognize the Malay dialect spoken in the Muslim-majority far south as an official language it justifies the acts of terrorism that are being committed against schools and their instructors. Wonderful argument you got there.

Thailand’s people and government should have the right to legislate a single official language if they choose to, but according to the terrorist sympathizers they do not, and they should put up with terrorism until they do.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Before I get to my errand going back on the thread, let my say you gentlemen definately have risen the level of the debat, though it could be considered off the topic's content, it sure is within the semantic message of that topic ...the media is the message. So, I think its ok. And much more entlightning.

I've follwed it with interest since last night, and the fourteen signs of fascism as posted by Rich I sure can agree on. As a litmus test I use these three simple terms as to determain the type of a the rule.

When corporations run the government it is called fascisme.
When a government runs the corporations it is called communisme.
When a government regulates the corporations it is called (social)democracy.

Have it from some place, can't remember where.

Back TO the topic!

Today I found the piece of information this thread is build on. You remember, I objected to the number stated and found another figure. Now I've found the source article - and it's quite another again.
We now have three different figures for the event in question.

First we have China Post's 994...
Then we have Voice of America's 344...
And now Bangkok Post's. It states 322 schools to be closed.


Bkk Post General news >> Sunday November 26, 2006
All 322 schools in Pattani province will close indefinitely from tomorrow after the director of a community school was shot and burnt by Muslim militants on Friday. Bunsom Thongsriplai, chairman of the Pattani Teachers Federation, said all classes would be suspended until authorities could come up with better security measures for teachers in the province.

I think people should be more critic and apply their sound judgement more to the news sources they choose for ATS.

But of course if it's for the sensation, to emphasize fear and scandal, you hardly administer you choice objectively.

[edit to answer laiguana]
Thailand's constitution recognizes all major spoken dialects in the kingdom - and English.

Have you ever heard about STATE terrorism?

[edit on 30-11-2006 by khunmoon]



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 06:09 AM
link   


However, control of the media (which is certainly the case in the US) is a pre-requisite of fascist control of the population.


I did a search for media independence and received about five and a half million results. A few were about media watchdog group which advocates independence and criticism in journalism. Others talk about how the media has lost its independence. If the government controlled the media, why would such a wide range of ideas be free to flow?



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 07:01 AM
link   
OK

To all the People splitting hairs on how many Schools are being shut in an effort to draw away from the Fact that Islamofascists have caused this, Hundreds of Schools had already been shut and Hundreds more following hence the CHina posts figure of 900ish.

At the end of the day if its 300 or 1300 its still Hundreds to many, if it was 1 or 2 schools it would hardly be news worthy in this day and age, but the fact is 10s of thousands of Kids are now missing there education because of some of Satans hench men!!

If every minority group in every country sought Independance the entire globe would be at War ! Thailand needs to crush these Islamofascists and do it fast !



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
If every minority group in every country sought Independance the entire globe would be at War ! Thailand needs to crush these Islamofascists and do it fast !


For the love of God, read up on the history of the conflict before you pass judgement. They only wanted cultural autonomy in the beginning, not independence. Throughout the past century things weren't bad -- it wasn't stable either, but life goes on and people went about their lives.

It was only after the former PM's heavy-handed methods of dealing with "problems" that the place became a living hell. As an example lookup any news articles on how the Thaksin government handled drug dealers. Granted they were drug dealers, but it was still kinda scary... 3000+ massacred in a week. I bet more than half had nothing to do with the drug trade. Anyway that's not the point of this post.

Wikipedia has more information on the situation, and from what I've read it's pretty balanced. In fact, it even has support for your conspiracy theory, NumberCruncher:


South Thailand insurgency

[...]

In November 2006, Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont revealed that the insurgency was being finance by restaurants and stalls selling Tom Yam Kung in Malaysia. Surayud claimed that the Tom Yam Kung network collected money from local businessmen through blackmail and demands for protection fees and channelled the sum to the separatists.[34] Malaysian Deputy Security Minister Fu Ah Kiow described the revelation as "absolutely baseless," and "very imaginative."

[...]


Hehehehheheh
Funded by Tom Yam stalls. That's a good one.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Well the former Prime minister of Thailand dissagrees with you, but i guess you and your link knows better ?

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra


In 2002, Shinawatra stated, "There's no separatism, no ideological terrorists, just common bandits." By 2004 he had reversed his position, and has come to regard the insurgency as the local front in the global War on Terrorism



Im not sure on there interims PrimeMinisters feeling on it, but some suggest his opinion could be biased .....



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join