It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by grimreaper797
Islam is a religion, fascism is a political viewpoint.
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]
Originally posted by RedGolem
Your statement also seems to be not completely factually correct.
Originally posted by grimreaper797
... 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?
Fascism seems to be that money rules.
In democracy everyone has power with voting, regardless of money.
I think you'll find that those rights are being alienated right now, actually.
We vote, we have certain unalienable rights, and we have unrestricted business growth.
Sure sexism and everything else are factors, but they just aren't important factors.
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.
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.
However, control of the media (which is certainly the case in the US) is a pre-requisite of fascist control of the population.
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 !
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. Malaysian Deputy Security Minister Fu Ah Kiow described the revelation as "absolutely baseless," and "very imaginative."
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