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.

 

Bush Press Conference: Did he call Islam a false Ideology?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 07:05 AM
link   
ah-hem... The nature of your observations can be easily flipped to present commentary on how fanatical Christianity is a false ideology just as easy. Fanatics aren't created from within normal practice of a given doctrine, they're created from external stresses, much as you've indicated. They look for justification for their fanatical desires within their ideology, and what do you know, in Abrahamic religions, it's easy to find. But this isn't the "Conspiracies in Religion" forum.
My point was not about the individual merits of one ideology over another, or even the evils of fanatic ideology, but the tonality of rhetoric from this national leader. His fundamentalist Christian background made it impossible for him to temper his words. To him, anything but his ideology is a false one... fanatic or not. His comment is the type of comment that ends up snowballing and creating fanatics. In the fervent atmosphere of a Muslim nation, it doesn't take much to fan the flames of Christian hatred... and this comment could be used as a pretty big fan. I would expect the senior officials of our government to understand this, and while their personal beliefs may be anything they like, I would hope their rhetoric demonstrates an understanding of the larger issues.




posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 07:05 AM
link   
That's all fine Valhall, and probably as true as anything these days... but we all have our biases.

For me, if it were ANYONE but who I see as another irrational, illogical, religious fanatic wrought with malisciously induced hatred pointing the finger at Islam, then I'd probably be fine with it.

But as it stands, all I see is a Kettle/Pot argument.

All I ask is a smidgeon of diplomacy in a President. Maybe next time.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
ah-hem...

The nature of your observations can be easily flipped to present commentary on how fanatical Christianity is a false ideology just as easy.

Fanatics aren't created from within normal practice of a given doctrine, they're created from external stresses, much as you've indicated. They look for justification for their fanatical desires within their ideology, and what do you know, in Abrahamic religions, it's easy to find.

But this isn't the "Conspiracies in Religion" forum.


My point was not about the individual merits of one ideology over another, or even the evils of fanatic ideology, but the tonality of rhetoric from this national leader. His fundamentalist Christian background made it impossible for him to temper his words. To him, anything but his ideology is a false one... fanatic or not.

His comment is the type of comment that ends up snowballing and creating fanatics. In the fervent atmosphere of a Muslim nation, it doesn't take much to fan the flames of Christian hatred... and this comment could be used as a pretty big fan.

I would expect the senior officials of our government to understand this, and while their personal beliefs may be anything they like, I would hope their rhetoric demonstrates an understanding of the larger issues.


Don't get me on a big quote here, everything needs to be here. I said very clearly in my first post that ANY fanatical teaching that promotes hatred and malice toward fellow humans is evil. This is NOT a statement against Islam. Nor can we conclude that Bush's statement was against Islam, but against the "false ideology" that is growing within that religion. Right now the Crusades are NOT going on, so he doesn't really need to address the false ideology that fired them...right?

YES, hatemongerers can find the same twisted teaching in the Old Testament...and they did and hence the Crusades. This is NOT a religious topic. This is about calling fanatical hate-building evil teachings (even if they were purely secular - i.e. the Nazi's) evil when they are evil.

You twist the fact, though, when you say fanatics are created from external sources. No, they are created from within a given "group", but in order to push the fanatical beliefs THEY create within themselves and for their own purposes they USE external factors in a twisted manner. (Back to the Crusades...nothing external created this fanaticism. It came from within. But was twisted by the "teachers" of it as "if we do not destroy the non-converting pagans they will destroy us"...same damned thing. Create an external threat, or false effect, to justify illogical behaviour.)



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 07:55 AM
link   
I didn't watch the conference but the small quip I saw of it looked painfully boring. Was Bush drunk? I know thats how I ramble when I've had a few. If he did call Islam a false ideology, at least thats one concrete statement he got in. From what I saw of it, it was probably his only one. I don't know if I agree with that assessment since it tends to underestimate the danger from this group. I think I would have used "dangerous ideology" or maybe "fatal ideology" or something to drive home just how much of a threat these loons really are to anyone who isn't them.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 08:35 AM
link   
This is from timebomb2000...

www.timebomb2000.com...

I wonder just how many other boards are discussing the same thing as on ATS.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Thanks energy_wave

here is the quote

"fanatical political idealogy"



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Don't you people see it yet!!!!! (screams ahh!!! and pulls hair)
The Christian ideology of George Bush that he is trying to press on all Americans and the world.

Deny it all you want, but Bush's personal religious beliefs have taken control how he runs this country.

This so called "jihad" and holy war is being instigated by this President...he has created more issues and continues to do so to incite the extremists.




[Edited on 4-14-2004 by worldwatcher]



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 08:52 AM
link   
A committed Satanist will call all ideologies but his own "false."



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot
A committed Satanist will call all ideologies but his own "false."


you make perfect sense...bush cares for neither Christianity or Islam, that is why he would want a holy war....let the christians and muslims battle it out, throw the jews in somewhere down the line...and ta da!!! who wins?.....the evil demons, devil worshippers, skull and bones.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Exactly...well stated.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 09:44 AM
link   
The intent of radical Islam spans more than just this presidency. I'm neither political ally nor enemy to him but the agenda of Muslims worldwide is definetly apparent. Why? Well, for one thing, they have no bones at all about telling you exactly what they want....anybody that doesn't subscribe to their way, dead. If you ask me this entire administration is just like all the others we've had. They fail to drop the shroud of political correctness that has had this country blinded for years. What we are being forced into is tolerance for a group which refuses to tolerate our very existence. The writing has been on the wall for some time now about the intentions of this so called peaceful religion.

The war started by Islam is being won by Islam not only by their acts of terror but more so by their threat of labels to anyone who dares criticize their right to their religion. If your religion is to murder me and everyone I know and love because we will not be forced into acceptance of its savage, inhuman dogma, then as the old song says, "you're walkin' on the fighten side of me."

And trust me, thats no where anyone wants to be.

Tolerance ends now.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Speaking to the adults in the room - how many C level executives have you met? How many MBA holders? How many double Ivy League graduates? In all of those interactions, did any of that number purport themselves anywhere near this president's lack of eloquence or mental acuity?
Every unscripted moment leads to further insights on why this job is above him. Although, that has been well apportioned for, as indicated by a line read between below:

Q. Mr. President, Why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9/11 commission? And Mr. President, who will you be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30?

A. We'll find that out soon. That's what Mr. Brahimi is doing. He's figuring out the nature of the entity we'll be handing sovereignty over. And secondly, because the the 9/11 commission wants to ask us questions. That's why we're meeting, and I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions.

Q. Mr. President, I was asking why you're appearing together rather than separately, which was their request.

A. Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9/11 commission is looking forward to asking us, and I'm looking forward to answering them.
Let's see. Hold on for a minute. Oh I've got some must calls, I'm sorry

TRANSLATION: I've nothing to offer & am a liability to myself...besides, the decisions where his anyway.
*****************
Q. In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say? And what lessons have you learned from it?

A. Hmmm. I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it. I'm sure historians will look back and say, Gosh, he could have done it better this way or that way. You know, I just I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet.

TRANSLATION: I thought you were the complicit media? How'd you get to ask a question? Ho can I feign a mastery of the facts if I don't know your questions beforehand?
*************



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
I just love the hardline Republican way of though:

When I'm right, I'm right.
When I'm wrong, I'm still right.


And Democrats don't think this way? Try to see through that thick cloud of something called 'Bias'

Note to all: I am not a Republican. Some of you have made it very clear that you are not a Republican though, and that's fine. But please recognize boths sides, it will make it a lot easier to find the truth.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join