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.

 

Islamofascism: How dare you say that

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   
"Islamofascism" is a buzzword coined for the benefit of the far right, who do love their talking points and oversimplifications so.

This is not to say that there isn't a surge in Islamist radicalism, but as others have pointed out there is no united front of "Islamofascists" working in lockstep toward a common goal.

There is a great deal of division between the various factions of Islamic radicals - witness the growing tension between Shiite groups aligned with Iran (like Hezbollah) and Sunni militant groups like Al Quaeda. They are at war with eachother, and also with moderate elements in their own societies.

But the myth that there is a single unified "Islamofascist" movement engaged in a broad cultural war with "the West" is just that, a myth. They are no more unified than "the West" is, probably less so - we mostly just argue with one another - they are killing one another.




posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
I clap each time I hear our President say the word "ISLAMOFASCISM/IST" because it stabs the terrorist sympathizers with the truth and they rile up. But what do you expect from terrorist sympathizers, to be rational? I doubt it.


what terrorist sympathizers?

are you implying those that don't support the freedom crushing of the reckless and adventurist war on terror are enemies of the united states?

anyway, there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A UNIFIED TERRORIST MOVEMENT

if you can show me otherwise, i'll be impressed, and convinced if the evidence is credible and substantial



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 07:49 AM
link   
This term implies not only a few muslims

It implies the whole muslim nation.

It is used to demonise complete populations.

The first step to kill of a nation or people is to dehumanise them.

This is what is done here with this term.


Starange that so many americans think this term fits while their own goverment fits the discription, fashist, mostly the best.

It is an old trick, finger pointing to distract from your own "fashism"



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Actually, it's an even older trick to misspell words to avoid the issue.

And yes, there is a unified terrorist movement. It's called ISLAM.

[edit on 1/4/2007 by southern_cross3]



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by southern_cross3
Actually, it's an even older trick to misspell words to avoid the issue.

And yes, there is a unified terrorist movement. It's called ISLAM.


when i read that i thought it was parody for a minute
but then i realized that it wasn't

honestly, do you have a single piece of evidence to support that HORRIBLY BIGOTED claim?



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by southern_cross3
And yes, there is a unified terrorist movement. It's called ISLAM.


I can't predict with any certainty where the interpretation of T&C will fall, but my two cents is that this kind of bombastic nonsense should be unacceptable.

I served with a Muslim in the United States Marine Corps, and Pvt. Mahmoud was not a member of any terrorist movement. There would, however, be plenty of terror to be had if any xenophobe who had a problem with that particular Muslim had gotten froggish with him while I was around.

No person deserves to be hated for the sins of strangers who happen to share a certain demographic with them.
White as I may be I never bombed a black church and I don't deserve to be branded for that just because some other white guy did.
So why should a Muslim be any different?

Show a little respect for your fellow members SouthernCross- the internet is a very broad community and nobody in it should have to be degraded when they come to ATS. Deny some ignorance.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Shar'iah is not fascism. When true Shar'iah is implemented the societies have put the West to shame.

What you see now in the Middle East is a well-deserved response to Western Colonialism.

Killing innocent people is wrong. But who is innocent?

All the racists and bigots here are doing is proving that sometimes some things, which may otherwise seem wrong, are justified.

See you in Iran.

[edit on 5-1-2007 by AbuMusaab]



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by AbuMusaab
Shar'iah is not fascism. When true Shar'iah is implemented the societies have put the West to shame.


And that would be where, because, to be frank, I don't see anywhere on the planet thats better than anywhere else particularly in terms of human life. Lifestyles yes, but not in terms of actual people because everyone should be treated as equal, respected as an individual, be free to come and go as they please, wear what they want and be allowed to express themselves openly and freely and certain aspects of Shar'iah really don't quite see things that way do they?

And whereas "traditional" law applies constants whereever possible, Shar'iah seems to apply opinions of the most senior religious cleric available.

Feel free to contradict me and point out my failings in my observations above if you like.



What you see now in the Middle East is a well-deserved response to Western Colonialism.

Killing innocent people is wrong. But who is innocent?


Innocent people are ones who have no axe to grind from either side who get caught up in the bickerings caused by the superstitious nonsense of religious fanatics, be they christian, muslim, jewish etc. 99% of the population of the world is innocent. Its the ones that decide to resort to violence who aren't



All the racists and bigots here are doing is proving that sometimes some things, which may otherwise seem wrong, are justified.

See you in Iran.


Well the tone of your post comes out as someone who seems a tad bigoted themself, as bigots come from all sides of the religious and ethnic spectrum. The "See you in Iran" comment is kind of provocative don't you think - or were you inviting everyone on ATS for an all expenses paid holiday?



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 07:23 AM
link   
I love how in the same post some guy calls racism for using the term "islamofacist" and in the same breath mention the grand might of shariah law.

Okay, maybe shariah isnt inherintly racist but neither is the term islamofacist. Thats like saying you cant call fundamentalists nuts like Pat Robertson and christian fundamentalist because its racist.

First, like Islam, Christian is not a race.

Second, Pat Robertson IS a fundamentalist nut!

So is any "Muslim" who believes anyone who doesnt comply with Sharia law should be stoned to death and all women are 4th and 5th class citizens. Oh, and theres no singing, dancing, you cant miss a prayer or you'll be stoned to death, you cant fart the wrong way or youll be stoned to death, you cant leave the house (if a woman) and not get stoned to death, you cant ride a bike (as a woman) and not get stoned to death...

You know, youre right. Sharia truly is a path to peace. Isnt that what the Soviet Union thought too? If only we could rule the world there would be peace? Hitler just wanted peace too. Remember that one UK? You kinda dropped the ball with that one. Or was that Chamberlains fault? Poor Churchill took all kinds of crap for that. AND THE POOR GUY WAS RIGHT THE WHOLE TIME. Just let him have another country and gas a few thousand more Jews and we'll have peace.

This "Islamofacist is a racist term" crap is just that. CRAP. And Im so unbelievably sick of seeing the argument go on and on and on and on and on.

[edit on 5-1-2007 by thisguyrighthere]



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
This "Islamofacist is a racist term" crap is just that. CRAP. And Im so unbelievably sick of seeing the argument go on and on and on and on and on.


Its not a racist term. Its an ignorant one, and it needs to be exposed as such. Just because its not racist doesn't make it right though, does it?



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Sorry to post again but I just thought of something.

If there were enough OBGYN shooting Christian fundies out there to have their own country would everyone be jumping at the chance to defend their way of life? If they were on the news every night exploding car bombs in front of clinics or stoning Protestants or Catholics or whatever it is theyd like to stone would people be crying racism for the term Christian facist or Christian fundamentalist? Say, get out you Western coalition and leave them to their science-hating, dr. shooting, inifidel stoning ways?

Is it the "islamo" in "islamofacist" that causes a problem? Would you be happier if we just called it a war on facism? I doubt it.

Stupid racism. And stupid all yo umorons you jump like Al Sharpton to call it every chance you get. Ever hear of the boy who cried wolf? Keep shouting the sky is racist and you wont notice the Klan moving in next door until its too late.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
"Islamofascism" is a buzzword coined for the benefit of the far right, who do love their talking points and oversimplifications so.

This is not to say that there isn't a surge in Islamist radicalism, but as others have pointed out there is no united front of "Islamofascists" working in lockstep toward a common goal.

There is a great deal of division between the various factions of Islamic radicals - witness the growing tension between Shiite groups aligned with Iran (like Hezbollah) and Sunni militant groups like Al Quaeda. They are at war with eachother, and also with moderate elements in their own societies.

But the myth that there is a single unified "Islamofascist" movement engaged in a broad cultural war with "the West" is just that, a myth. They are no more unified than "the West" is, probably less so - we mostly just argue with one another - they are killing one another.


Islamofascism is a buzzword used to advance an agenda, I agree. However, if you stand against this, then I hope you also stand against "Islamophobia" which is another tool for political manipulation and propaganda.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Sorry, totally off topic but I have to get it off my chest...

On the Chamberlain-Hitler UK thing. It really bothers me that then and now the U.S. gets so much blame from people. "Why didnt you get involved sooner?" "You knew what was going on!" "Why was the U.S. such isolationists?"

All the while the UK was playing the biggest denial game in history.
Is it more reasonable to blame a nation 4,000 miles away for not jumping at the chance to loose 100's of 1000's of our men and boys for France than to wonder why England was so eager to appease the Nazis and look the other way while war raged on their doorstep?

Now the U.S. is involved with some kind of war and regardless of how were there and why were there and all these conspiracies about wealth and oil (were 7 trillion in the hole getting real rich, huh?) were at least trying to offer an opressed people with a genocidal leader a shot at democracy.

Has there ever been a time when we werent the "bad" guys or the worlds scapegoat? I dont think so and frankly Im sick of it.

Completely off topic, sorry. I do feel a little better though.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 08:32 AM
link   
You raise a good point and getting beat up regardless but at least history as judge is generally positive now. There are many vocal and emotional posters which generally don't want to scream about good things.

To answer your question timing, the US's actions will be hyper-analyzed because the Soviet counterbalance is now gone. Historically, I see so many parallels between the UK's former empire of land and the US economic hegemony and desire to place bases all over the world. The US does have many imperialistic aspects which will always stir the pot.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   


Islamofascism is a buzzword used to advance an agenda, I agree. However, if you stand against this, then I hope you also stand against "Islamophobia" which is another tool for political manipulation and propaganda.


I tend to dislike made up words in general, unless they're describing something something truly new, IE a new technology or genuinely new principle. "Islamophobia" and "Islamofascism" are both made up words designed to be used as political tools. Religious intolerance and religious extremism are already sufficiently descriptive terms.

A side note, reading all kinds of DoD and defense contractor PR, I have come to really despise the term "warfighter", which it appears is now mandated by law to appear in every bit of defense industry PR at least five times... who came up with this word, and how can I punish them?

[edit on 1/5/07 by xmotex]



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
A side note, reading all kinds of DoD and defense contractor PR, I have come to really despise the term "warfighter", which it appears is now mandated by law to appear in every bit of defense industry PR at least five times... who came up with this word, and how can I punish them?


Now you went and did it. I didn't notice until your post which means it will bug the hell of me too every time I see "warfighter". Like that song you can't get out of your head.


[edit on 5-1-2007 by Political Veto]



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Political Veto

Originally posted by xmotex
A side note, reading all kinds of DoD and defense contractor PR, I have come to really despise the term "warfighter", which it appears is now mandated by law to appear in every bit of defense industry PR at least five times... who came up with this word, and how can I punish them?


Now you went and did it. I didn't notice until your post which means it will bug the hell of me too every time I see "warfighter". Like that song you can't get out of your head.


[edit on 5-1-2007 by Political Veto]


While we're on the topic of made up words (seems to be a Yank thing, i might add), I despise the word "negatory"...

Why? Why? Why?

Whats wrong with negative or no? Jeebus...



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
While we're on the topic of made up words (seems to be a Yank thing, i might add), I despise the word "negatory"...

Why? Why? Why?

Whats wrong with negative or no? Jeebus...

Like Jeebus and Jaysus?



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 08:03 PM
link   
I like Jeebus as Homer says it and it sounds funny...But I see your point



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   
from what i gather with what we've discussed so far on this thread, islamofascism/islamofascist are stupid terms to use simply because nobody has shown that there is a unified terrorist movement

well, except for the bigoted post by SC about how he thinks all muslims are implicated in terrorism (which he also provided no evidence for)

[edit on 1/6/07 by madnessinmysoul]




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join