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.

 

Is Islamofascism a correct term to use describing terrorists?

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Answer to the 2nd part of your final sentence question.....

the term is a 'catch phrase'



the enemy zealots are identified here.
www.familysecuritymatters.org...


at paragraph 5 we find:


...almost 100% of the legitimately defined terrorist acts are perpetrated at the hands of Wahhabist terrorists -
Islamic radicals, Islamic fundamentalists-
dedicated to the demise of Western Civilization and the establishment
of a global Caliphate.




(( note the date of the Frank Salvato article -> 14 december 2007




posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Good thread this... I am glad to see many are highlighting the term as a mere buzzphrase used to present a generalised, dehumanised force of evil for your average Faux News fan to direct their hatred and anger against. Some people on this site would be amazed at what they would be able to see if only they would learn to rise above these obvious propaganda spiels

And finally....


Originally posted by neformore
The IRA were/are Catholofacists.


I had to double take there... For a moment my mind saw "Cthulufacists"



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   
HA! You butchered those quotes!!!
Lets see...

You turned.

As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe.


into



Don't bother to warn the disbelievers. Allah has blinded them. Theirs will be an awful doom. 2:6


Then turned this

And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

and this


But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.


into this


Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kil them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2


Oh, and my favorite, you turned this


And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.


into

Fight them until "religion is for Allah." 2:193


The same goes for almost every one of your quotes, but that'd be a lot of typing and I think I made my point. Unless you translated these yourself, your source is full of garbage.

BTW, here's the link to mine.
www.usc.edu...

Each verse has 3 separate translations from the original Arabic.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   
It is more of a catchphrase than anything. I mean, in Germany, you had all of these big corporations like IBM and such, influencing the government and providing jobs, can someone name even one big Middle Eastern corporation? Hehe, no, because the rest of the world has enough sand. I see Facism as not really one solid ideology for one thing because every regime that was called Facist was different. "Islamic Fundamentalist" to me would be the correct term as these people believe (or act on) the Koran as if it were literal, and they believe their's is the only way.

A Qaeda did exist in the 80s when they were butt buddies with the Americans. They were OBLs anti Soviet insurgent organization.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 05:57 PM
link   
I think it boils down to what sounds good, or whats easier to say. Christofascist doesn't sound right, compared to Islamofascist, but Christian Fundamentalists sounds as well as Islamic Fundamentalist. The right doesn't want to be easily associated with anything opposing them, or things they consider bad.

It would be really pathetic if this is a accurate reason for coining this phrase. It's hard for me to believe people can use this term with a straight face.

*catch phrase*= propaganda.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


Not really. You could be a Christian or Islamic Fundamentalist without being a ________fascist. I think the term defines those that have many similar violent and political attributes as well. I'ts not propaganda to try to identify sub groups of a larger group. Are all Islamic Fundamentalists Islamofascists? I don't think so.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by XBadger
Kilgore Trout,

There is a fascinating scholarship emerging on the intellectual linkage between Nazi intellectual thinkers and the birth of radical Islam. Jeffrey Herf (at the University of Maryland) is currently writing a book that should illuminate some of these issues. He hasn't published an (free) academic article on it yet, but here are a few lectures and popular publications where you can glimpse some of his ideas. In addition

www.zeit.de...

To be fair this lecture doesn't give a systematic intellectual history (that he has wildly suceeded in the past), but is upcoming book should address this very issue in a more systematic


I will definately take a look at that. I don't discount the 'theory' but that is all it is at this stage and it needs to be discussed. I think that the connections of commonality between Nazism and Islamic etremism are far more convoluted than at first appears which requires them to be looked at from a more international perspective.

I am researching a book that touches slightly up on this subject myself so I will certainly look at what Herf has to add to the debate. Thanks.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Kilgore, I suppose you're one of those who think that Islamic radicalism was the creation of the U'S government as late as 1973?


Really... now, come on...



I will overlook the pettiness of that remark. Of course Islamic radicalism did not start in 1973 but nor did it start in Nazi Germany it was already well under way by then.

Al-Husseini allied himself with the fascist leaders of Europe because they shared common foes and they shared Nationalist ideologies. Fascism was the expression but it was the desire for nationalistic self-determination that united these groups at that time in history.

Though Husseini took refuge in Mussolini's Italy he sought out the Nazis because of shared anti-Zionism. He participated in Nazi Propaganda because it furthered his own goals for the self-determination of the Arab people's from British and French overlords. He helped to recruit some 10,000 men for the Muslim division of the Waffen-SS, whose intention was to follow Rommel and deal with the 'Jewish Problem' in a way similar to that carried out by the Einsatzgruppen in Eastern Europe. As a direct result of Husseini's intervention many Jews were prevented from being saved to Palestine and were instead sent to Auschwitz. Should he then be blamed for the holocaust in its entirety? If we look at it closely - who influenced who?

While I understand that connections exist I am reluctant, and in fact know better, than to blame the Nazis for everything. It is far too easy. On close examination you will find that a large share of the responsibility lies squarely at Britain's doorstep. Furthermore, you will find that like the British, the Germans were only using the Arabs to further their own ends.

There are a good many reasons for Islamic fundamentalists but in short, if you have been sh## on as many times as they have, then you will get angry. While considering the ignorance in which many of the Arab peoples are kept in by their leadership we should consider what our excuse is. The solution to any human problem is understanding, the problem of the origins of muslim extremism is, in my opinion, not one that is difficult to fathom.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by CPYKOmega
 


OK got you, I was not trying to slam you just trying to impart some knowledge. Thanks....



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuhail
 


Check out my post on page 2 this is the answer

[edit on 16-12-2007 by birchtree]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 09:22 PM
link   
I WONDER DID ANYONE READ MY POST ON PAGE 2 THAT TELLS YOU WHERE THE TERM CAME FROM. Nevermind I am out of here



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Kilgore, I suppose you're one of those who think that Islamic radicalism was the creation of the U'S government as late as 1973?


Really... now, come on...



I will overlook the pettiness of that remark. Of course Islamic radicalism did not start in 1973 but nor did it start in Nazi Germany it was already well under way by then.




Petty? How is it petty when you have many on this board, if not the majority, who ignorantly think that Islamic radicalism is the creation of the United States Government? When in truth, it has existed for at least the last 150 years.



[edit on 17-12-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 06:42 AM
link   
SoT, I don't think I've come across anyone who thinks it's the creation of the US govt. I have come across many who know that the US govt uses them, creates individual cells, funds them, supplies them arms and tells them where to shoot.

That's not in question is it?



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 


I did not manage to see how he had 'butchered' those quotes outside of context. So what if those quotations are directed to pagans or other cults at the time that they (the muslims) were in conflict with? Many muslims regard Christianity as a pagan cult FYI....and what exactly would stop muslims from applying that -call of action- in modern times, against others who they believe are in conflict with their beliefs and religion?
Again, I place emphasis on the fact that many liberals and terrorist supporters refuse to acknowledge that muslims may have interpretations different from their own. Just like in Christianity, there are a variety of interpretations of the Bible and this is reflected in the number of denominations: methodists, lutherans, catholics, baptists, presbyterians, etc. Same thing goes for all mainstream religions. Interpretations of religious doctrine will vary from your own. I know...I know this revelation may hurt some egos, but it's true.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Using your own logic, there's no way all Muslims can be grouped into one set of violent beliefs. If a select few insist on interpreting the text in a violent way (which is common throughout religions). Most Muslims are peaceful, and interpret the text in a peaceful way.

And BTW, turning "fight those who oppress" into "kill anyone who doesn't believe in Allah" is a big change.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 


I have no issue with my logic, my question is how do you know that these are just a 'select few'...I may admit that the percentage of extremists partaking in violent acts is small in comparison to the rest who remain dormant...Despite that, a small percentage from one billion is still huge.
There's also nothing telling me that most muslims disapprove of these extremists. When Americans like myself see footage of muslims, possibly several thousands, chanting "death to america" and "death to israel" and "death to" anything they don't like...it really makes one wonder.

On your 'fighting against oppression' remark.... I'm afraid to say that I couldn't take it seriously because the ones oppressing them the most is their own extremist-terrorist beliefs and governments. Unfortunately, in the liberal mind, the Taliban, Al Queda and any other Islamic terrorist group you can name are all trying to fight the oppression of western ideologies... so everyone please be sure to send your sympathies their way...



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by laiguana
 


Do you expect every Muslim to make their opinions known in a public forum? There are plenty of anti-violence marches and protests performed by Muslims, it's not my fault that your only source of news is from CNN, MSN and the like.

And no one said anything about the Taliban and Al Quaida being 'freedom fighters fighting oppression'. I was just pointing out the correct translation of a verse. How one interprets that is up to them.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Petty? How is it petty when you have many on this board, if not the majority, who ignorantly think that Islamic radicalism is the creation of the United States Government? When in truth, it has existed for at least the last 150 years.


I think your selling the members of this board short. I don't believe that the US government created Islamic Radicalism, But I do know for a Fact that the US government Did create Al-Qaeda, back in the 80's to combat Soviet forces in Afghanistan.

I do however like the term Islamic Radicalism, more than IslamoFascism, they seem more Radical than Fascist to me. If anything the Neo Conservative movement in America more resembles Fascism.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
reply to post by laiguana
 


Do you expect every Muslim to make their opinions known in a public forum?

Of course not, and that's not what I was referring to.


There are plenty of anti-violence marches and protests performed by Muslims, it's not my fault that your only source of news is from CNN, MSN and the like.

Considering that I haven't watched CNN, MSN or even FOX news in ages, I don't see how you could come up with that conclusion. As far as anti-violence marches..I have seen none, not doubting that they exist, but I'm betting these marches all take place in a civilized western society where they aren't afraid of being convicted to death for protesting against the extremists of Islam, which I clearly see as the majority on a global scale.
For every westernized/peaceful muslim there's likely another 500 muslims that wish to destroy America, of course it all depends if they actually can...which most can't, since they can't afford the materials and travel expenses to become suicide bombers themselves. Sure they can parade around pieces of cardboard calling for the destruction of the U.S. and Israel and shouting obscenities, but it's not like they have the funding to act on their words. This is the reason why I call them dormant.



How one interprets that is up to them.
Right...

[edit on 17-12-2007 by laiguana]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   
The political definition of a terrorist really depends on the viewpoint of the one labelling them terrorists in the first place. But perhaps, in the not too far future, many Americans may put a mirror to themselves while they sit in a FEMA camp and ask themselves if they are islamofascists or not.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join