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: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by laiguana
 


For every 1 peaceful Muslim there are 500 "IslamoFascists"?

Prejudiced
Hate Mongered
Useless and baseless.

Any of the above statements could apply to the above comment. No logical facts , just fear and hate.

[edit on 17-12-2007 by Rasobasi420]




posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
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 is this utopia you speak of?

No personal observation? Doubting and betting? Hardly the basis for a massive, sweeping generalisation of a recognised worldwide peaceful religion.


For every westernized/peaceful muslim there's likely another 500 muslims that wish to destroy America


Oh! So if a muslim is not western then they are hostile?

To be honest, the American people have many foes, Islam is the least of your worries. You should really be looking closer to home. Very close to home. In fact you may want to start any witch hunt at the Whitehouse.


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.


Yeah. That's right. All muslims are poor desert dwellers right?!!

I see a pattern emerging here.


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.


Don't worry about that. As soon as the U.S. need anther reason to invade/murder/wage war upon another country they will be providing ample funding - except that it wont be to your everyday peaceful muslim. It will be to a CIA workhorse posing as 'islamofacists'!

Know your enemy my friend and trust me, it is not Islam.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 03:59 PM
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.


Look we are in agreement on this one we merely differ on the details. We don't need to bang our heads together.

There are many events throughout modern history that have contributed to the extremism that has enveloped certain sectors of the Muslim people. The second phase of the Great Game saw the British creating a 40,000 strong Persian professional army; the Indian Mutiny increased conflict between the Hindus and Muslims of India that was then exacerbated a century later with the hurried partition...the fight between the UK and US for oil rights in the middle-east...the list quite literally goes on and on.

Imagine then how, following 9/11, the Muslim people felt when President Bush publicly used the word 'crusade' in relation to the 'War against Terrorism'. They were angry of course, but more than that they were fearful of their ability to protect their way of life. Bush may be an idiot but his team of advisors are not, they, if not he, knew exactly what they were doing and the effect that it would have. After apologising publicly for this supposed 'faux pas', the same term was used in a letter to the party faithfull - I reiterate they knew exactly what they were doing when they used that word and what it would mean to the Near East.

There are comparisons to be drawn with the Crusades - they were about money and the current war on terror is about exactly the same thing. It is not about terrorism - that is about an immasculated peoples desperate need to feel as though they can formulate change. Some terrorist organisations are western constructs, Al Qaeda was most probably empowered by the West to bring insurgency to allow some corporation to muscle in, but suicide bombers are just desperate people who do not know what else to do. I do not believe in any use of violence but that does not stop me from understanding the nature of violence. In most cases we react with violence out of fear.

There is too much disparity in the world. Why was Hussein wrong but the Saudis are right? Because one does business with the west while another would not. Why is Iran wrong? Same reason. Our governments are, in theory, our representatives - Are they really representing us?

When we factor in the influence of the Nazis we must also remember who made them. The US business community participated in the preparation and planning of Agressive War, men were hanged on this charge at Nuremberg. The US investors who were, in my mind, equally culpable, got off scot free. Not only that they profited from the more oppressive aspects of the Nazi regime. The Bush family line profited from the death of Jews just as they are now profiting from the death of Muslims. It is all there in black and white. I cannot and will not blame the muslims for fighting for what they believe in, I would much rather help them by opposing the profiteering of war mongers.

NB The US were not the only investors, UK and European interests were also culpable, but the US were the major investors



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 


That is your statement "For every one peacful muslim there are 500 IslamoFacists" you folks are going to get me to start my own post here in a minute

first of all being a fundamentalist does not mean you are a radical fundamentalist

Second being a radical fundamentalist in itself does not make one a islamofacist

third, although I have tried to address this several times I will explain again. IslamoFacism is a term that subject matter experts use as a key word to define Radical Islamic groups whose goal is to re-establish the caliphate (a sort of pope for islam) for the goal of having a state by which to launch a campaign of world islamic control.

This is similiar to what Hitler did during world war 2 by trying to use "The Fatherland" as a basis of German Pride in which to establish a state by which he could try to dominate the world

NOTE This linking to hitler is why these certain groups, especially Al Qaida are termed as an IslamoFacist group. They are using the principles of Islam to seek their Left Wing Political Terrorist Agenda and although they are Muslim and maybe even fundamentaly Religious the nature of their goal is outside of their religious beleifs. I am not saying the establishment of the Caliphate is outside of the beleifs of Fundamental Islam I am saying using those belief to establish a State for the sponsering of there terroristic agenda for a world foothold is.

There are more peaceful Islamic people than their are radicals. It is just absurd to think that these people are labled this way as a whole, it is just not true.

DISCLAIMER: In stating that the Caliphate is a type of Pope I am just marking the similarity of the positions and am in no way saying these positions are the same. Many Americans do not know of or have ever heard of the Caliphate and so I strike these comparisons for people that have never heard of the Caliphate.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


Kilgore, yeah, that is pretty much my opinion on the "war on terrorism" as well. Although, I view it as having more of a religious overtone, I think we are both in agreement that it is a renewed crusade for money and control.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by birchtree
 


I think you misunderstood what I meant. Please re-read, and site my "reply to"

Thanks



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
reply to post by laiguana
 


For every 1 peaceful Muslim there are 500 "IslamoFascists"?

[edit on 17-12-2007 by Rasobasi420]


So are you denying that anti-American sentiment exists in most Islamic nations? I think it would be naive to say most muslims like Americans and want America to thrive; I would conclude that most muslims in these countries have a deep hatred for the American government and the American people. Anyone under a government or faction that wants to destroy America or wishes to harm any of its representatives is a terrorist in my book.
And I could point you to a number of links with articles covering the growing anti-american sentiment in Islamic nations, but like all liberals you think any major media source would be supporting Bush's secret globalist agenda, or whatever it is you people like to believe.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   
No, I just know that the world is made up of individuals. And, until I know what every individual thinks, I won't presume to judge. Sure, there are groups that share common beliefs, like the KKK. But would I assume every white person is a klansman? Or that for every one good white person I meet I'll find 10 klansmen in the shadows?

So, until you don't mind someone across the world assuming that you burn crosses on black people's lawns because you're white, don't assume every Muslim is out to plant IEDs and fly planes into buildings.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by skibtz
No personal observation? Doubting and betting? Hardly the basis for a massive, sweeping generalisation of a recognised worldwide peaceful religion.


I have yet to see any documentation showing the majority of muslims world-wide condemning terrorist groups such as Al-Queda. Until then, I am left with the idea that they are in support of terrorism.



Oh! So if a muslim is not western then they are hostile?


Not necessarily, but I would think most have anti-American sentiment.



To be honest, the American people have many foes, Islam is the least of your worries. You should really be looking closer to home. Very close to home. In fact you may want to start any witch hunt at the Whitehouse.


I have nothing to fear from my government, it's unfortunate so many like to point their fingers in that direction because they know nothing of it; Islam on the other hand is responsible for the majority of terrorist acts in the world in recent times. It's documented everywhere, everyday. So to say Islam is the least of anyone's worries would simple be a fallacy.


It will be to a CIA workhorse posing as 'islamofacists'!


That explains plenty....nothing unusual when it comes to the liberal bandwagon -always blame America.



Know your enemy my friend and trust me, it is not Islam.


Islam is in conflict with itself...I have never said that Islam is an enemy of America, because Islam is simply a religious ideology, and to me that means absolutely nothing. However it appears that there's a growing trend among many of its followers.. indicating that they are in support of terrorist groups.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

So, until you don't mind someone across the world assuming that you burn crosses on black people's lawns because you're white, don't assume every Muslim is out to plant IEDs and fly planes into buildings.


KKK was isolated, can't believe anyone brings them up. Islamic terrorism is a global-wide epidemic that has grown with the centuries. So I have no issue viewing most muslims as potential extremists.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana

I have yet to see any documentation showing the majority of muslims world-wide condemning terrorist groups such as Al-Queda. Until then, I am left with the idea that they are in support of terrorism.


This is a blanket statement, it's like saying all Jewish people worldwide are in support of the Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people. Looking at your signature, are you going to say your opinions are not biased?


Not necessarily, but I would think most have anti-American sentiment.


Again another blanket statement. I do wonder if this statement is true, do they have reasons for being Anti-American? Possibly because of America unyielding support of Israel, in the tune of 17 million dollars a day, without this money Israel would not be able to enforce their Apartheid like policies against the Palestinians.


I have nothing to fear from my government, it's unfortunate so many like to point their fingers in that direction because they know nothing of it; Islam on the other hand is responsible for the majority of terrorist acts in the world in recent times. It's documented everywhere, everyday. So to say Islam is the least of anyone's worries would simple be a fallacy.


I have not and never will defend terrorism of any kind, but the policies of America and Israel have inflicted more injuries and death towards Arabs/Muslims than terrorist have inflicted on us. Just look at the Iraqi death toll.


Islam is in conflict with itself...I have never said that Islam is an enemy of America, because Islam is simply a religious ideology, and to me that means absolutely nothing. However it appears that there's a growing trend among many of its followers.. indicating that they are in support of terrorist groups.


Sure you did just look at what I have just quoted you saying!

Until then, I am left with the idea that they are in support of terrorism.
and you also said this:

Not necessarily, but I would think most have anti-American sentiment.


One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter, its war is it not? War is hell is it not?

This topic is about whether Islamofacist is the correct term for describing terrorist.

[edit on 17-12-2007 by LDragonFire]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by laiguana
 


All this person is saying to you is just because someone is white does not mean their in the KKK and the statement does likewise for Muslims. He is not refering to the scope of action being national. transnational or international. When was the last time you were in the Middle East or South East Asia to see how people act, you don't know. I came back last Feb



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Why not just say:

Theofascist?

Then modify the term with the religion of your choice as the prefix.

Christian Theofascist
Islamic Theofascist
etc...

Nobody gets their own word, or label.
Everyone is represented fairly in their fascism.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 


Yeah I did mistake your reply for a POST, sorry, but did my response provide some knowledge.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Why not just say:

Theofascist?

Then modify the term with the religion of your choice as the prefix.

Christian Theofascist
Islamic Theofascist
etc...

Nobody gets their own word, or label.
Everyone is represented fairly in their fascism.


I like Religious Extremist, or Fundamentalists, or even zealot as in.

Christian Zealot
Islamic Zealot


1capitalized : a member of a fanatical sect arising in Judea during the first century a.d. and militantly opposing the Roman domination of Palestine
2: a zealous person; especially : a fanatical partisan
dictionary


[edit on 17-12-2007 by LDragonFire]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


I was getting there..LOL
My point, and yours too, seems to be, that we've already got it covered.

So the word, is not needed. It was invented for propaganda purposes only.

How about Tele-fascists..you know, the news media...can we keep that one?
I promise I'll take care of it, and feed it every day.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


I was getting there..LOL
My point, and yours too, seems to be, that we've already got it covered.

So the word, is not needed. It was invented for propaganda purposes only.

How about Tele-fascists..you know, the news media...can we keep that one?
I promise I'll take care of it, and feed it every day.


LOL yup And we can't forget about the radio talk show hosts. Have fun walking that one!
Tele-fascists we need some one to add that to wikipedia



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
[I have yet to see any documentation showing the majority of muslims world-wide condemning terrorist groups such as Al-Queda.


I think the simple fact that 1 billion people have not turned against the remaining population is proof in itself.

200 rioting Italian football fans is not an indication that all Italians are violent people who should be avoided at all costs until they prove themselves otherwise.


Not necessarily, but I would think most have anti-American sentiment.


Any sentiment is anti-American foreign policy and anti-American government. It is not Anti-America. America is a fantstic country with some amazing people. That is not what is in dispute here.

Considering the actions of the American goverment in recent years this sentiment could be considered by many, not necessarily by me, to be justified.


I have nothing to fear from my government


Your unelected government?

Your govenment that lies to it's people about the real reason why it is sending it's troops to war?

911?

JFK?

Unfortunately we all have everything to fear.


...it's unfortunate so many like to point their fingers in that direction because they know nothing of it


Your government is as screwed as all the others. The fact that yours is the No.1 government puts it under the spotlight. It does not make it the peace spreading entity you probably think it is.


Islam on the other hand is responsible for the majority of terrorist acts in the world in recent times. It's documented everywhere, everyday. So to say Islam is the least of anyone's worries would simple be a fallacy.


That is what is in dispute.

There are some that say the War on Terror is a fallacy. A reason to invade other countries as a pretext for it's natural resources. A reason to take away your civil liberties in order to protect you.

But that sounds a bit far fetched right? Never going to happen?

I think we are already there.



That explains plenty....nothing unusual when it comes to the liberal bandwagon -always blame America.


The American goverment and it's foreign policy? Yes. I do blame it. Along with all the other governments of the world that support it in it's quest to control the masses.

'Liberal bandwagon' sounds like the usual soundbite/diatribe.

Having said that I would rather be on the Liberal Bandwagon than the Murderous Train of Death.


Islam is in conflict with itself...


Who isn't these days?



However it appears that there's a growing trend among many of its followers.. indicating that they are in support of terrorist groups.


There is growing resentment toward western governments and foreign policy. I should imagine that it is inline with the growth in the number of illegal operations that these governments carry out year after year.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by spacedoubt
 


Hey arent you moderating this forum? Does that include you reading the POSTS.

I have repeatedly given the facts of where the term IslamoFacism came from

It was a term not even invented for the public but professionals in the analyst/planning field..the media got a hold of it and used it in varying applications.

Of course I know Posts will take their own direction, but to me it is very frustrating when some body asks for answers and in receiving them just bypasses them to continue whatever controversy it is they want to look for. Especially as a moderator actually reading you say that the word was created for propoganda is crazy.

As a moderator you are certainly allowed to your opinions I am not saying that but did you even give possibility to my POST on page 2 and page 5 explaining the term.

I am not jumping on you I just want to know.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by birchtree]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by birchtree
 



I must agree. Though some MAY use it as a catchphrase or propoganda, it it initally was defining a specific movement within general Islam. Would it make you feel better to call them Radical Fundemental Islamic Terrorists (maybe we can give them a cute acronym like F.I.R.T. Fundemental Islamic Radical Terrorists) rather than Islamofascists?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join