Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Is Islamofascism a correct term to use describing terrorists?

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by birchtree
 


Do you expect the thread to be closed to posting after you post the correct answer?




posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by CPYKOmega
Anyone else see the complete idiocy of the term Islamofascist now?


Not me.

The term fits radical islamic terrorists perfectly. It also differentiates between the radicals and those Islamics who aren't involved in terrorism.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


There is a clear difference between Radical and Fascist.


Radical:
3 a: marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : extreme b: tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c: of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d: advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs
dictionary


Radical is a very good term to describe terrorist, thanks for adding to this thread.
It's a much better definition for terrorists than Islamofascist.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


Yes but the difference is about the same as the Chicago Cubs and White Sox. Here is a good article talking about the two forms of Islam we are debating.

Common Intellectual Roots of Fascism and Radical Islamism:.

Radical Islamists and Fascist Islamists share many of the same traits besides the obvious religious ones.

If you would care to elaborate, what exactly is the difference between the radical and Fascists forms of Islam?

The lines are rather blurry to me. Both espouse using violence to achieve their means as well as other atributes. To me, it's like saying that's a Clemintine not a Tangerine. They pretty much taste the same to me.


[edit on 19-12-2007 by pavil]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 


No absolutely not, I just like to compound knowledge, I think the conversations should grow not digress....for instance below your post, that I am responding to now it shows a reply to a post saying something like

"Does anyone now see the idiocy of the term Islamofacism"

And the response is:

"The term fits Radical Islam Perfect"

The term itself has a specific purpose, as one analyst to another can say IslamoFacist group and know what we are talking about in general. In other words you could see the analyst or planner constantly having to define what was meant to another so the term can be debated as idiotic, but in relevant professions this term coins certain groups, and when the term is used the defintion has a specific application. As opposed to the reply "The term fits radical Islam perfect" no it does not. If someone would have actually read the POSTS here they would know just because someone is a fundamentalist does not mean they are radical, and just because someone is a radical does not make them an Islamofacist, which I guess could speak of an individuals ideology but for the most part is used to coin certain groups.

I apologize if it seems I am being pushy about my opinion, which in this case is not really my opinion but based on my professional knowledge. It seems people just ignore what is said to stream nonsensical arguements, or perhaps they do not read all the POST before jumping in (which is their right) the way I see it is like I see an exposed politician. They are either fabricating because they know and choose to ignore, or they should of known and acted based on incompetence. To see people here at a forum that is to search out facts, relay Theory, discuss in a intelligent manner (happens most of the time), and be honest, I think there is a lot of undermining and agenda that chooses to ignore and yes that is somewhat upsetting



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
When have Hindus, Buddhists or Taoists ever committed an act of terrorism?
Fact is, people that practice Islam... HAVE!!!

[edit on 15-12-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]


a bit late in the day but important........ Suicide Bombing came out of the conflict in Sri Lanka where Hindu Tamils were the first group to use them against the Buddhist majority for perceived state-terrorism.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   
the biggest problem I have is that it singles the conflict down to being nothing more than Islamic extremism, when in fact it is much more to do with how the globalisation of information technologies has allowed the majority world to realise how it has been economically marginalised and exploited. Religion is simply a conduit, "hijacked" and used to express frustrations.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Well, it has been proven that there is a link between Islamic "fanaticism" and the Nazis; the Nazis even supported them during WW2...

[edit on 15-12-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 15-12-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]


Oh brother, Hitler never accepted German Jews, he supported Middle Eastern Arabs.
What is your source Buggs Bunny?


WWI and WWII was not fought between European and not Muslims? Ask anyone except Donald Duck



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Ed Sha
 


What are you really asking. Was there a link between Islamic leaders in Palestine and the Nazis? Research it yourself and stop with the cartoon innuendos, you are just making yourself look silly.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


Well, the dictionary says Fascism is a governmental system with various intrinsic qualities (dictator, oppressing the opposition, a melding of all industry under his/her control, laced together with nationalism).

Now, I shouldn't have to go any further into why the term "islamofascist" is incorrect, but I fear I will have to spell this out later if I don't, so here goes:

These terrorists are not part of a single government. They don't have a dictator. Their dictator, which they don't have, doesn't have control over a nation, and doesn't oppress the opposition. And they don't have a single nation they belong to.

We already have several perfectly good phrases for the specific islamic terrorists this thread is discussing: islamic terrorists, jihadis, etc.

One should always be wary when an already-loaded word (in this case 'fascism') is used to create a term to describe something for which there are already very useful and accurate terms. Surely the motive is not to increase accuracy of the term (as the existing terms are already as accurate as possible), but to tar the subject with the same brush as the loaded word.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by tarichar
 


Well, actually the first reference to actual suicide bombing taking place in documented history (as opposed to legends and myths) that I could find (after a few minutes searching) was by the Dutch in Taiwan in the 1660s. So, from my cursory investigation, Christians are leading the "who blew themselves up first" field.

Clearly it has nothing to do with any particular religion, just the belief that one's life is less important than a specific cause, which is the cornerstone of pretty much every nation on the planet, from Iran to the US to the UK to Germany to Australia, etc. etc. etc. As long as there is a "greater good", suicide bombing will always be the last resort of a desperate group. Luckily for most of us in the west, we have not had such desperation in our lives to fully understand the pressures on a person that can cause them to want to lay their life down for their cause.

Personally, I abhor terrorism. I don't care if you do it by blowing yourself up on a bus, or by pressing a button at 30,000ft. If you want to kill civilians, or don't mind if they die, and scare them into doing what you want, you're evil, and a terrorist.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by CPYKOmega
Anyone interested in what's going on with the world today please research The Knights Templar. Basically what happened back in the 1200-1400's is happening today. With one exception, technology.


[edit on 12-15-2007 by CPYKOmega]


The Knights Templar were scapegoats of the Church... They didn't go around pillaging and raping... That was just a lie used by the church to demonize a group of people the church disagreed with.

[edit on 15-12-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]


Correct about being scapegoats of the church.The Templars were more popular and gained more donations to their cause than the church did from the common peon.SO the church outlawed them and persecuted their members.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Fascism is a tie to Italy or corporate power. Neither of which apply to Islam.

Which is why the term is absolutely absurd!



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I feel the term is incorrect as it portrays Islam in a terrible light.When i think of fascism Hitler is the first to come to mind then Mussolini then Franco from Spain.

However,Muslims did indeed join the Nazis in their extermination of the jews.They fully supported the Final solution.This is why many associate Islam with Fascism.Then again,many serbs,croats,romanians,Ukrainians,bulgarians and Austrians also joined the nazis and SS to help with the final solution but you dont hear the term christianfascism.I prefer to call all these crackpots, extremists period.Extremists includes all groups regardless of country or religion.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 07:51 PM
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.

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.







Nothing more to add Kilgore other than good post and youre correct in your info about arabs cooperating with the Nazis.

[edit on 22-5-2008 by Justice11]



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Justice11
 


Let's not forget that a large number of Americans, British, French and Dutch also supported the Nazis. I'm just saying this so no-one accidentally equates all Arabs with Nazis - if we use that logic, then so are folks from the countries I mentioned.






top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join