Islamic Fascism 101

[chiron]

This was passed to me, it's good!

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=OGEyNjcyNzBjYTQ2MDM0ZGIzZjY5YjhhMzViYjdjNTA=

Islamic Fascism 101
On all they’ve done to earn the name.

By Victor Davis Hanson

Make no apologies for the use of “Islamic fascism.” It is the perfect nomenclature for the agenda of radical Islam, for a variety of historical and scholarly reasons. That such usage also causes extreme embarrassment to both the Islamists themselves and their leftist “anti-fascist” appeasers in the West is just too bad.

First, the general idea of “fascism” — the creation of a centralized authoritarian state to enforce blanket obedience to a reactionary, all-encompassing ideology — fits well the aims of contemporary Islamism that openly demands implementation of sharia law and the return to a Pan-Islamic and theocratic caliphate.

In addition, Islamists, as is true of all fascists, privilege their own particular creed of true believers by harkening back to a lost, pristine past, in which the devout were once uncorrupted by modernism.

True, bin Laden’s mythical Volk doesn’t bath in the clear icy waters of the Rhine untouched by the filth of the Tiber; but rather they ride horses and slice the wind with their scimitars in service of a soon to be reborn majestic world of caliphs and mullahs. Osama bin Laden sashaying in his flowing robes is not all that different from the obese Herman Goering in reindeer horns plodding around his Karinhall castle with suspenders and alpine shorts.

Because fascism is born out of insecurity and the sense of failure, hatred for Jews is de rigueur. To read al Qaeda’s texts is to reenter the world of Mein Kampf (naturally now known as jihadi in the Arab world). The crackpot minister of its ideology, Dr. Zawahiri, is simply a Dr. Alfred Rosenberg come alive — a similar quarter-educated buffoon, who has just enough of a vocabulary to dress up fascist venom in a potpourri of historical misreadings and pseudo-learning.

Envy and false grievance, as in the past with Italian, German, or Japanese whining, are always imprinted deeply within the fascist mind. After all, it can never quite figure out why the morally pure, the politically zealous, the ever more obedient are losing out to corrupt and decadent democracies — where “mixing,” either in the racial or religious sense, should instead have enervated the people.

The “will” of the German people, like the “Banzai” spirit of the Japanese, should always trump the cowardly and debased material superiority of decadent Western democracies. So al Qaeda boasts that in Somalia and Afghanistan the unshakeable creed of Islam overcame the richer and better equipped Americans and Russians. To read bin Laden’s communiqués is to be reminded of old Admiral Yamamato assuring his creepy peers that his years in the United States in the 1920s taught him that Roaring Twenties America, despite its fancy cars and skyscrapers, simply could not match the courage of the chosen Japanese.

Second, fascism thrives best in a once proud, recently humbled, but now ascendant, people. They are ripe to be deluded into thinking contemporary setbacks were caused by others and are soon to be erased through ever more zealotry. What Versailles and reparations were to Hitler’s new Germany, what Western colonialism and patronizing in the Pacific were to the rising sun of the Japanese, what the embarrassing image of the perennial sick man of Europe was to Mussolini’s new Rome, so too Israel, modernism, and America’s ubiquitous pop culture are to the Islamists, confident of a renaissance via vast petro-weatlh.

Such reactionary fascism is complex because it marries the present’s unhappiness with moping about a regal past — with glimpses of an even more regal future. Fascism is not quite the narcotic of the hopeless, but rather the opiate of the recently failed now on the supposed rebound who welcome the cheap fix of blaming others and bragging about their own iron will.

Third, while there is generic fascism, its variants naturally weave preexisting threads familiar to a culture at large. Hitler’s brand cribbed together notions of German will, Aryanism, and the cult of the Ubermensch from Hegel, Nietzsche, and Spengler, with ample Nordic folk romance found from Wagner to Tacitus’s Germania. Japanese militarism’s racist creed, fanaticism, and sense of historical destiny were a motley synthesis of Bushido, Zen and Shinto Buddhism, emperor worship, and past samurai legends. Mussolini’s fasces, and the idea of an indomitable Caesarian Duce (or Roman Dux), were a pathetic attempt to resurrect imperial Rome. So too Islamic fascism draws on the Koran, the career of Saladin, and the tracts of Nasserites, Baathists, and Muslim Brotherhood pamphleteers.

Fourth, just as it was idle in the middle of World War II to speculate how many Germans, Japanese, or Italians really accepted the silly hatred of Hitler, Mussolini, or Tojo, so too it is a vain enterprise to worry over how many Muslims follow or support al Qaeda, or, in contrast, how many in the Middle East actively resist Islamists.

Most people have no ideology, but simply accommodate themselves to the prevailing sense of an agenda’s success or failure. Just as there weren’t more than a dozen vocal critics of Hitler after the Wehrmacht finished off France in six weeks in June of 1940, so too there wasn’t a Nazi to be found in June 1945 when Berlin lay in rubble.

It doesn’t matter whether Middle Easterners actually accept the tenets of bin Laden’s worldview — not if they think he is on the ascendancy, can bring them a sense of restored pride, and humiliate the Jews and the West on the cheap. Bin Laden is no more eccentric or impotent than Hitler was in the late 1920s.Yet if he can claim that his martyrs forced the United States out of Afghanistan and Iraq, toppled a petrol sheikdom or two, and acquired its wealth and influence — or if he got his hands on nuclear weapons and lorded it over appeasing Westerners — then he too, like the Fuhrer in the 1930s, will become untouchable. The same is true of Iran’s president Ahmadinejad.

Fifth, fascism springs from untruth and embraces lying. Hitler had contempt for those who believed him after Czechoslovakia. He broke every agreement from Munich to the Soviet non-aggression pact. So did the Japanese, who were sending their fleet to Pearl Harbor even as they talked of a new diplomatic breakthrough.

Al-Zawahiri in his writings spends an inordinate amount of effort excusing al Qaeda’s lies by referring to the Koranic notions of tactical dissimulation. We remember Arafat saying one thing in English and another in Arabic, and bin Laden denying responsibility for September 11 and then later boasting of it. Nothing a fascist says can be trusted, since all means are relegated to the ends of seeing their ideology reified. So too Islamic fascists, by any means necessary, will fib, and hedge for the cause of Islamism. Keep that in mind when considering Iran’s protestations about its “peaceful” nuclear aims.

We can argue whether the present-day Islamic fascists have the military means comparable to what was had in the past by Nazis, Fascists, and militarists — I think a dirty bomb is worth the entire Luftwaffe, one nuclear missile all the striking power of the Japanese imperial Navy — but there should be no argument over who they are and what they want. They are fascists of an Islamic sort, pure and simple.

And the least we can do is to call them that: after all, they earned it.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is the author, most recently, of A War Like No Other. How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War.

[chiron]

I don't understand the double post?

[rgrjoe175]

I don't understand the double post?

I think it has something to do with dumb Rangers living in Greece...:p

Sometimes it happens, when the site is dragging ass like today.

JP

[HoosGhost]

Aside from the sweeping generalizations, ignorance of history and jingoism, the author has nifty diction. Talk about an echo chamber.

[Doogie320]

Aside from the sweeping generalizations, ignorance of history and jingoism, the author has nifty diction. Talk about an echo chamber.

I'm reading one of Hanson's books now. I believe he thinks too much of himself and his thoughts and don't agree with several of his conclusions. He's a great writer but I don't agree with some of his positions. He seems too myopic and wedded to his views to consider anything else.

[fish78]

TSK,TSK...Hanson is closer to the truth than most government policy makers.

[Jimbo]

TSK,TSK...Hanson is closer to the truth than most government policy makers.

And you know this because policy makers reveal their innermost thoughts to you? Plus, Fish, what the fuck do you know about the Truth? When was the last time you traveled in a Muslim country? When was the last time you had a conversation with a Muslim?

TSK, TSK this.

[fish78]

Last conversation witha Muslim was yesterday, Last trip to a Muslim country...never...That is not Hanosn's point however, neither he, nor anyone else, I am aware of has said ALL Muslims are fascists, what he is saying and none of the government policy makers are willing to say it, publically at least, is that the Takfiri's and Caliphatist's ideology fits the broad description of fascism.

[KidA]

Said it before and I'll say it again: Hanson needs to stick to ancient history. He's one of the best historians alive writing about ancient Greek history and wars and he should stick to it. His current fascination with Islam just falls flat. Guess there's not much money in books on ancient warfare - I buy all of them tough.

[chiron]

I think it has something to do with dumb Rangers living in Greece...:p

JP

Yeah I love you too. :p

[chiron]

I have no idea about the author. From what I read in your posts he’s not even close.
He may be using the wrong analogy in that WWII is not the best place to consider similarities. Maybe he should have used Star Wars. Still the fact that OBL and his movement are there leaves much to consider. They are as the line in a movie goes “a clear and present danger” which will be around for years to come with a single agenda, to fight the west and its way of life until the end. Whatever the analogy used the fact still remains that they are here to fight till the end. An ideology will not go away unless you wipe all the followers out. Not possible, nevertheless, as the poor get poorer and the middle class sinks religion is all that is left. It’s easy for any OBL to gather followers with religion using one book, one dogma. “Do or else” and the illiterate, poor will follow. Big mess it is. My guess is that long after OBL is dead and gone his organization will still be there looking for opportunities to strike.

I know one thing and that is that many street corners in Athens have filled up with Pakistani looking windshield washers. You think that if/when the shit hits the fan they will not come out swinging what ever they can get a hold of?

[specwarnet]

By Victor Davis Hanson
To read bin Laden’s communiqués is to be reminded of old Admiral Yamamato assuring his creepy peers that his years in the United States in the 1920s taught him that Roaring Twenties America, despite its fancy cars and skyscrapers, simply could not match the courage of the chosen Japanese.

Except that Yamamoto never said that, and in fact believed quite the opposite???

[Doogie320]

Said it before and I'll say it again: Hanson needs to stick to ancient history. He's one of the best historians alive writing about ancient Greek history and wars and he should stick to it.

That's better than I put it.

Hanson's conclusions...are a stretch at times. He believes what he wants to, fact is irrelevant.

[ET1/ss nuke]

He believes what he wants to, fact is irrelevant.

I guess that makes him human. Isn't he a professor of history? Some of the most opinionated and closed-minded people I've ever known were college professors who were considered experts in their fields. Historians are among the worst, because they earn their reputation by proposing new and different interpretations for old facts, and once their reputation is tied to an idea, criticism of the idea can be taken for a personal attack. Biology professors who blithely assume that life just managed to develop itself out of non-living things and that one species can have offspring of a different species can be just as closed-minded to students who point out the impossibility of macroevolution for the same reason history professors find themselves wedded to an old idea: they can't bring themselves to admit that they have spent their careers being wrong.

[Doogie320]

I guess that makes him human. Isn't he a professor of history? Some of the most opinionated and closed-minded people I've ever known were college professors who were considered experts in their fields. Historians are among the worst, because they earn their reputation by proposing new and different interpretations for old facts, and once their reputation is tied to an idea, criticism of the idea can be taken for a personal attack. Biology professors who blithely assume that life just managed to develop itself out of non-living things and that one species can have offspring of a different species can be just as closed-minded to students who point out the impossibility of macroevolution for the same reason history professors find themselves wedded to an old idea: they can't bring themselves to admit that they have spent their careers being wrong.

I'd agree with that.

[fish78]

OK, folks, lets cut to the chase, you can quiblle with Hanson's examples, you can quibble with his mindset, but you should not lose sight that he has correctly described the ideology of the Takfiris and Caliphatists as fitting the broad description of Fascism.

[1799]

OK, folks, lets cut to the chase, you can quiblle with Hanson's examples, you can quibble with his mindset, but you should not lose sight that he has correctly described the ideology of the Takfiris and Caliphatists as fitting the broad description of Fascism.

"Islamic Fascism" is nothing but a rallying call. As well as "Zionazi". Neither has any meaning, beyond screwing up with the mob's most base emotions.

As is the shameful thread that's been closed today, "Realities of Shariah law" (http://socnetcentral.com/vb/showthread.php?t=64101). We've just witnessed a blood libel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel_against_Jews), this time, anti-Muslim. Some bastards did not spare their time to make this story up. Who the heck are they? What is their goal?

If there was ever a need to justify a struggle against fundamentalism in this religion this could be it

My .02

[1799]

duplicate deleted

[1799]

And one more.

[fish78]

One less than 1800, are you maintaining that there are not those within Islam who wish to impose a world wide Caliphate? Are you further maintaining that within Islam there are not those who are Takfiris? Are you further maintainting that the Takfiris' and Caliphatists' ideology does not fit the broad description of Fascism? If this is your contention, please eloborate.

[1799]

Actually, I am one more than 1798 :p And one thousand more than 798. And... you get the idea.

Some Muslims want a Caliphate. Obviously, not many, as, while we are seeing a united Europe, we are yet to see 2 (two) Muslim countries unite of their own free will. World-wide caliphate? On the edge of the sword? I don't rembember even Bin Laden ever declaring this. Do show me a modern Islamic source that advocates that.

Here is a good article on Takfirs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfir_wal-Hijra. Do you agree with what it says?

[fish78]

Have you stoped beating your wife? The question as I asked it stands.

[1799]

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a classical example of a question that has no adequate "yes" or "no" answer. Your inquiry is another.

If we don’t call Hitler or Torquemada “Christian Fascists”, or King Saul “Jewish fascist” for murdering the nation of Amalek, or American settlers "anglo-saxon fascists" for decimating the Indians, or Russans... or Alexander the Great... or Tengiz Khan... or British empire... we should not call Bin Laden “Islamic fascist”. It’s hate speech. Nothing more, nothing less. All emotions, no food for the mind. Meanwhile, calm mind is essential in order to understand what you (and we) are up against.

[fish78]

No, your resaoning is faulty, Hitler's fealty and rallying cry for his brand of Fascism was German Aryan nationaliam. The Caliphatist and Takfiis fealty is to Islam and their rallying cry is Sharia , so Islam is integral to their brand of Fascism and to call it such, is in no way hate speach. It is an accurate discription of an enemy without nationality, but with a shared ideology.

[Sigi]

Were the Taliban Islamic Fascists?

Not a loaded question - just trying to learn here, since up to now I had no problem calling them that.

[Vincent]

Were the Taliban Islamic Fascists?

You know, I hate the term, because I think it is largely just spin, but if anyone fits the definition, I think it would be the Taliban.

First, were they an organzation that had facist tendencies? I think the answer to that is yes. They did not allow dissent, they did not allow opposition, they gained power through force of arms and instituted an oppressive, autocratic regime on a country.

Second, the iintellectual(?) foundations of that rule was Sharia law. Or at least their version and interpretation of Sharia law.

Furthermore, I have met people who make an honest argument that except for bin Laden, Afghanistan was a much better place under the Taliban. Prior to their taking the country, there was widespread lawlessness, and they brought a measure of order to the country. That's the argument that you always hear in favor of the European facists - they made the trains run on time..

[chiron]

What is a fascist government? Isn’t it a government that imposes it’s self on the people without vote and what they say is final? Nevertheless, my opinion is that the Taliban were and are fascist. To me even religion under one book and one dogma is fascist. They all say you’re with us or you die or go to hell. Having said that, it is also important to note that neither fascism nor Islam and for that matter neither is my religion Christian Orthodox a democracy one book one dogma nothing or us.

As we venture into the unknown and learn we question things that in the past were not questioned. The masses were illiterate and accepted what they could not question for lack of knowledge. Today it’s a different thing. Christianity has learned that either they adapt or become extinct. Islam in my opinion has reached that crossroad and a large number like the Taliban, Al Qaida and so on and so forth will never adapt. The book is final.

With that said would you even enter a discussion with them knowing that there is no wiggle room, no chance at adaptation or deviation from “the book”.

[1799]

There is a lot of wiggle room, plenty of adaptation and deviation. Seriously. But it's late here, so you are going to have to take my word for it :cool:

Now. There is a non-zero chance of the WWIII. Russia + America + ... on one side. One billion of Muslims with nukes + North Korea on the other. It's our job to be ready if it happens. It's also our utmost responsibility to avoid irresponsible inflammatory speech that does nothing to us except bring us one step closer to this scenario. Bush's Chrusade talk has done enough damage already. This, and the Islamofascist talk that makes it so much harder for a pro-Western, moderate Muslim to accept America, are just what Bin Laden's doctors ordered.

Fascism? What's fascism? A relatively moderate Italian regime. According to http://m-w.com,


Main Entry: fas·cism http://m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?fascis01.wav=fascism'))
Pronunciation: <TT>'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-</TT>
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <EARLY fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>



This is deliberately vague. Almost any monarchy, for example, is fascism under this definition. The problem is, when we say Islamofascism, we imply our opponents are Nazis.. not Italian-like. And that's a real problem, because Nazis, unlike Mayas for example, awaken emotions in us. It's bait and switch.

Fish78, your argument is valid; but according to it, Torquemada and Conquistadors are still Christian fascists, while King Saul is a Jewish fascist. After all, God told him to destroy the entire nation... Under your definition, Russian Empire is still Russian Fascism. My point is, the label of fascism is just that. It's very non-descriptive, yet extremely loaded.

What's worse, when you say "islamofascists", or "Christian fascists", you can mean one of the two:
1) that Muslims, by and large, are fascists, kind of like those who say "Zionazis" or "Rusists", or
2) the fascist minority among Muslims.

You and I can know you mean the latter, but you can't always fine print it... so there are guaranteed to be some, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, who WILL understand it as 2. Another bait and switch.

I may be talking like a lawyer here, but words have power... words kill...

But I am not known to be very eloquent at night.

[fish78]

Sleep it off and continue tomorrow. Apparently, you miss the point entirely. The current enemy, whether named Al Qaeda, Taliban, Hezzbollah, or any of a myriad of other names shares the goal of the imposition of Sharia through the institution of a Caliphate...it is Islam that calls them to do it...no, Islam does not call the majority of Muslims to do this...but those that it does call, fit the broad description of Fascist. If they are not Fascists, what are they?

I challenge you to find a single quote from George Bush where he uses the word "Crusade".

[KidA]

Sleep it off and continue tomorrow. Apparently, you miss the point entirely. The current enemy, whether named Al Qaeda, Taliban, Hezzbollah, or any of a myriad of other names shares the goal of the imposition of Sharia through the institution of a Caliphate...it is Islam that calls them to do it...no, Islam does not call the majority of Muslims to do this...but those that it does call, fit the broad description of Fascist. If they are not Fascists, what are they?

I challenge you to find a single quote from George Bush where he uses the word "Crusade".

No it is not Islam that calls them to do it. They are using Islam to justify doing it because the want to be in control.

This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. And the American people must be patient. I'm going to be patient. But I can assure the American people I am determined, I'm not going to be distracted, I will keep my focus to make sure that not only are these brought to justice, but anybody who's been associated will be brought to justice. Those who harbor terrorists will be brought to justice. It is time for us to win the first war of the 21st century decisively, so that our children and our grandchildren can live peacefully into the 21st century.
George W. Bush
White House press conference, September 16, 2001

[fish78]

Kid, 5 days after the attacks and crusade as he used it ther was with a lower case "c"...Now, please, point me to a quote, where he has used the term Crusade in the CONTEXT meant by 1800-1...

Your semantical distinction is noted regarding Islam, however, it is the rationale for their actions. Whether, it calls them or is used as an excuse, it is a distinction without a difference in practical terms in relation to this war.

[fish78]

double post

[chiron]

There is a lot of wiggle room, plenty of adaptation and deviation. Seriously. But it's late here, so you are going to have to take my word for it :cool:



I was born in Beirut in 1959 as was my father in 1929. My mother was born in Cairo. I have a feeling that when it comes to bad experiences with Islam I could go on and on. My point is that I as my uncle which fought for 16 years against Fatah, Hizballah and others`the family has seen that there is no wiggle room, nor any adaptation and deviation from the Koran. It’s something that you must live through to understand. Arab police decided to break my finger by slamming the car door on it to make my father confess in Jerusalem in June 1967 (I was 7). Later that summer before leaving for the U.S. Arabs tried to kill me because I was Christian, they broke my skull and wrist. A month later they tried again and broke my skull on the other side. I almost died. My uncle caught 6 rounds in separate incidents during the civil war. My father was almost killed twice. Even my grandfather had trouble. He made the death march to Adana, Turkey in 1915 when the Turks rounded up all of Greek heritage and put them in camps in Turkey after a forced march over 600 kilometers. Many died.

Wiggle room? Crap! They will kill you if you give them the chance. If you don’t they will smile and use your own laws to get you. I refuse to be politically correct with them!
That’s that!

[1799]

Chiron... I am truly sorry you and your family have been through this. I mean it. Can't even imagine what it was like for you. But in the interest of fairness, Christian Falangists have done some pretty bad things in Lebanon, too, no? Sabrah & Shatila for which Israel got all the blame... Yet, I'd be the first to oppose anyone being called a Cristian Fascist, because it implies wrong things about innocent Christians.

Bush has said "Crusade" on a press conference with a small C? How do you say something with a small C?

I am sure Bush did not say it in that sort of "context"... I think it was just plain ignorant, not intentional. As a Jew, I was completely baffled by this remark, too. After all, Crusadors practiced on Jews plenty before they went killing, pillaging and raping Muslims. What a gift to Bin Laden. From that point on, he did not even have to prove his long-standing point that the Westerners are Crusadors.

Darn, KidA, you stole my challenge. :cool:

Fist78, I INSIST I am 599.666666666666666666666*3. And I challenge you to prove me wrong. (sob).

More later.

[KidA]

Kid, 5 days after the attacks and crusade as he used it ther was with a lower case "c"...Now, please, point me to a quote, where he has used the term Crusade in the CONTEXT meant by 1800-1...

Your semantical distinction is noted regarding Islam, however, it is the rationale for their actions. Whether, it calls them or is used as an excuse, it is a distinction without a difference in practical terms in relation to this war.

You issued a challenge and I responded. It was written as text in a small "c" - only George Bush knows what he meant by it. Regardless, he said it.

In relation to this war and "certain" of the billion+ Muslims on this planet, yes, it is a distinction without difference. A billion Muslims is a hell of a lot though. It's over 3 times the total population of the United States. If their religion really called for them taking over the entire world and all of them belived it we'd be in one fuck of a lot of trouble.

[1799]

Fish78, can you bring one site or one quote by a contemporary Muslim who aspires for world domination on the edge of a sword?

[1799]

In relation to this war and "certain" of the billion+ Muslims on this planet, yes, it is a distinction without difference
What do you mean KidA? Please rephrase.

[KidA]

What do you mean KidA? Please rephrase.

I mean that there are certain Muslims, and quite a few of them, who are using what they believe about their religion to justify terrorism, domination, and the desire for a worldwide caliphate. Many of them are ignorant about their religion and believe only what they've been told (an equivalent is the GodHatesFags sect of Christianity in the US) by others who are manipulating their ignorance, or unemployment, or frustration in this current struggle for domination. Others of them (ringleaders and followers) fervently believe that their religion calls them to dominate everyone. But I also believe that there are many at the top-tier calling the shots who could give a fuck less about Islam (though they pay lip service to it), and care only about egomaniac self-serving power. I believe OBL falls into this latter category.

[1799]

But I also believe that there are many at the top-tier calling the shots who could give a fuck less about Islam (though they pay lip service to it), and care only about egomaniac self-serving power.
Me, too.
I believe OBL falls into this latter category.
That's where we differ. Throwing a glove at USSR, then America takes guts. He is a billionaire and could have had a good life; instead, he is an aspiring martyr hiding in a cave somewhere, and he is smart enough to have been able to foresee that all along.

[1799]

But I've read most of his interviews carefully and don't remember him ever speaking of world domination. In his mind, he seems to be Salah-ad-Din, a holly warrior defending Muslim lands from attacks by Crusadors.

[chiron]

Chiron... I am truly sorry you and your family have been through this. I mean it. Can't even imagine what it was like for you. But in the interest of fairness, Christian Falangists have done some pretty bad things in Lebanon, too, no? Sabrah & Shatila for which Israel got all the blame...

True my uncle was in that. The IDF surrounded the camps let no one in or out while the Phalange did his or her work. I was in Beirut in 1972 a 12 year old visiting my grandfather. We were driving south to see the site of Alexander the Greats ancient conquest. The PLO was in the process of entering Lebanon for the first time in mass. As we passed, they were a rag tag outfit that carried weapons coming in and I was staring at them and my uncle shouted, “don’t look at them they will fire”. Sure enough a few rounds buzzed by the car. We were a family going to the sites.

Those were very difficult times. That demanded tough decisions. I had family and friends when the civil war started. You may have not heard how the physical fighting started and would like to convey a story that was told to me by a participant.

A girl of 13 then in 1975 told me.

“We were on the way to the airport to fly to Greece when traffic came to a halt. We could hear the gunfire in the head of the line of stopped traffic. My father ran ahead to see what was going on. He returned at a run screaming they’re killing us. We forced our way back and finally returned home. We all loaded our M-16s and reported to our leaders.”

Now understand that the first civil war was in 1958. My brother was born in the hallway of the hospital because bullets were hitting the windows. My father was almost hit by a burst of 9 rounds. The U.S. Marines stopped that war. That is why the Christians where armed and ready. Every home had a small armoury.

My uncle’s squad had a 12-year-old boy and a 14-year-old girl in it. All fought. Because my uncle was of Greek decent and a Captain they called him the mercenary. It was 16 years of daily fighting with the occasional lull. Our family got out as we left Lebanon and arrived in the U.S. in August of 1967 after the six-day war.

You could say that I have lived enough to never trust a Muslim. I will never forget.

My 30-year-old cousin was born in war and she grew up in war. When she was 9 she came to the states to attend summer school at the school my father taught at and one day she kicked the sh*t out of an 18 year old boy. She grew up fighting. During the recent IDF fight against Hizballah I was on the phone with her every day. She would tell me “I hope they eliminate Hizballah” and “I’m fed up with them”. There are 40 % of the people in Lebanon that will not have anything to do with them. Thank God they are there.

Will I ever change my opinion? No I think not.

You see how violence perpetuates. When you have two dogmas colliding there can only be war. Neither can adjust, as the dogma does not allow for it. Today the words “politically correct” to me mean we surrender.

[KidA]

But I've read most of his interviews carefully and don't remember him ever speaking of world domination. In his mind, he seems to be Salah-ad-Din, a holly warrior defending Muslim lands from attacks by Crusadors.

This post and your previous one prove my point: he's an egomaniac. Islam is his vehicle. He may fervently believe in his cause but his evil is a deeper root - he's powermad and wants to be seen as something he's not.

[Greenhat]

I mean that there are certain Muslims, and quite a few of them, who are using what they believe about their religion to justify terrorism, domination, and the desire for a worldwide caliphate. Many of them are ignorant about their religion and believe only what they've been told (an equivalent is the GodHatesFags sect of Christianity in the US) by others who are manipulating their ignorance, or unemployment, or frustration in this current struggle for domination. Others of them (ringleaders and followers) fervently believe that their religion calls them to dominate everyone. But I also believe that there are many at the top-tier calling the shots who could give a fuck less about Islam (though they pay lip service to it), and care only about egomaniac self-serving power. I believe OBL falls into this latter category.


Steel on target.

[Greenhat]

That's where we differ. Throwing a glove at USSR, then America takes guts. He is a billionaire and could have had a good life; instead, he is an aspiring martyr hiding in a cave somewhere, and he is smart enough to have been able to foresee that all along.


You're assuming that money provides the type of power that Bin Laden wanted. It obviously does not.

You are also assuming that a different response than that in Somalia, or in reaction to the bombing of the WTC in '93, or to the attacks on the US embassies in Africa, or to the attack on the USS Cole, or to the attack on the barracks in Saudi Arabia was predictable. There was a long pattern that would make it quite easy for OBL to believe that there was no chance of his living in a cave. Despite your claims that he should have been able to foresee it. It takes not just knowledge, but a certain cultural viewpoint, one that OBL was highly unlikely to have.

[Greenhat]

You see how violence perpetuates. When you have two dogmas colliding there can only be war. Neither can adjust, as the dogma does not allow for it. Today the words “politically correct” to me mean we surrender.


Let me tell you a couple of stories...

From the late 19th century until the early 1930s, my grandfather lived in what is now Northern Ireland. He was a Protestant. He saw family members attacked by Catholics, was personally beat badly...

Eventually, he left. When asked by anyone why he chose to leave, he would reply "I'll not live in a country where men kill each other over how to worship the same god."

Should I condemn all Catholics for what was done to my grandfather? Should I condemn all Irish Catholics?

I don't and I won't. In any group, there are a certain percentage who are extraordinary... and a certain percentage who are the dregs of the Earth. All groups have them, because that is part of what is involved in being human.

Not the Islamics, the Nazis, the Catholics, the Christians, the Jews, the Communists or any other group of people have a special dispensation in this regard.

[1799]

Let me tell you a couple of stories...

From the late 19th century until the early 1930s, my grandfather lived in what is now Northern Ireland. He was a Protestant. He saw family members attacked by Catholics, was personally beat badly...

Eventually, he left. When asked by anyone why he chose to leave, he would reply "I'll not live in a country where men kill each other over how to worship the same god."

Should I condemn all Catholics for what was done to my grandfather? Should I condemn all Irish Catholics?

I don't and I won't. In any group, there are a certain percentage who are extraordinary... and a certain percentage who are the dregs of the Earth. All groups have them, because that is part of what is involved in being human.

Not the Islamics, the Nazis, the Catholics, the Christians, the Jews, the Communists or any other group of people have a special dispensation in this regard.

My point exactly. This is why, IMHO, the words like Zionazi, Rusist or Islamofascists should not be used IMHO, as they add fuel to the fire and alienate the good guys and the undecideds. I don't object against "Talbofascist" or "Alkaidafascists", except it's like the other F word in this case... adds expressiveness, not meaning.

A question: how do Muslims serving in the US military feel about this word? How do Turks and Jordanians feel about it? Maybe someone can chime in?

[chiron]

Let me tell you a couple of stories...

From the late 19th century until the early 1930s, my grandfather lived in what is now Northern Ireland. He was a Protestant. He saw family members attacked by Catholics, was personally beat badly...

Eventually, he left. When asked by anyone why he chose to leave, he would reply "I'll not live in a country where men kill each other over how to worship the same god."

Should I condemn all Catholics for what was done to my grandfather? Should I condemn all Irish Catholics?

I don't and I won't. In any group, there are a certain percentage who are extraordinary... and a certain percentage who are the dregs of the Earth. All groups have them, because that is part of what is involved in being human.

Not the Islamics, the Nazis, the Catholics, the Christians, the Jews, the Communists or any other group of people have a special dispensation in this regard.

True but I’m still angered with the amount of hate and violence Islam can muster at the sound of a calling from the tower. Yes the Christians in Lebanon fought each other when the Muslims rested. Yes the Muslims fought each other as well. But what goes on today is bringing core hate from Islam towards “The Infidel”. Living in Greece and being born in Beirut I do have friends that are Muslim even Turkish Muslim but they are a minority. It seems OBL and his thugs have brought together a hate towards the rest that is worthy of the devil. I’m pessimistic in that even if OBL died his ideology will carry on.

My father once told me that he was talking to a Chinese wise man and the Chinese man said the following. “God is a candle that burns in a multi facetted lamp. Each facet is a different color. Each religion sees God in the color it desires but God is still the same.” My problem with that is that the “Books” Koran and so on do not allow for the other. That being said starts the clash of the various dogmas that exist. Islam by the book will fight. There are to many poor, illiterate and hungry Muslims that need the “Book” or the Mullah to pull them through the day.

I live in a world that doesn’t have a “Constitution” that people flocked to. The various “Constitutions” were made after religion made a stand. Therefore the battle lines are drawn long before politics. I’m still firm in my thoughts.

Maybe after time and if history proves otherwise…

[1799]

Chiron, what did your father tell you about Sabra and Shatila?

[chiron]

Chiron, what did your father tell you about Sabra and Shatila?

My uncle was in it! He also organized and fought Tel El Zatar. We know that my uncle was trained by the IDF and was sent as well to Burnside Ott in Florida to learn to fly. We know that things were done. Look, you must understand that in those days entire Christian families were slaughtered in the name of Islam. Sabra and Shatila were not good but the Muslims would be even worst albeit no camps existed in which Christians could be slaughtered. If they did then there would have been more killings.

What about Sudan in 1956 when Muslims entered a first class hotel and killed all Christians every man, woman and child! I don’t hide behind a finger. I see that it has become a TIT for TAT fight. One that started with the first crusade. If you believe it will stop then good for you. Like I said I’m pessimistic.

[1799]

Chiron, what in your uncle's opinion was the role of Israelis?

How accurate is this depiction?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/audio_video/programmes/panorama/transcripts/transcript_17_06_01.txt

[fish78]

Fish78, can you bring one site or one quote by a contemporary Muslim who aspires for world domination on the edge of a sword?
Here is one, I can find others that they want Sharia to be the law worlwide was declared by the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928 and nothing has changed...I consider that contemporary. This, however is from 2004.

August 18, 2004
"Our Prophet did not run for office in any election ... he won the war against the infidel"
So said an imam in a sermon in the Middle East last Friday. How easy will it be to reform Islam? Amir Taheri in this New York Post piece (thanks to Fred Van Ackerman) also notes that "one theme of these sermons is that Bush's call for free elections and reform in the Muslim world amounts to 'an act of cultural aggression.'" This is the epicenter of the ideological conflict, and unless or until it changes, we will see more war.

The pan-Arab nationalists are angry at Bush because, toppling Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime in Baghdad, he destroyed the illusion of a "strongman" leading Arabs to unity and socialism. "It may take a generation before anyone talks of Arab unity without being laughed out of the room," says columnist Ahmad Rabii. "Those who dreamed of an Arab superpower will never forgive Bush."



"





"Our Prophet did not run for office in any election," the sermon says. "He did not win any political debate. [Instead] he won the war against the infidel."

A

[1799]

Thanks Fish78.

Fish78, can you bring one site or one quote by a contemporary Muslim who aspires for world domination on the edge of a sword?

"Our Prophet did not run for office in any election," the sermon says. "He did not win any political debate. [Instead] he won the war against the infidel."

What you've quoted is a factual statement, not a contemporary call for world domination. The context further clarifies it as an internal Arab/Muslim affair... and in part, it actually speaks of pan-Arab socialism, not Islam...

My challenge still stands.

[fish78]

Who is the INFIDEL?

[1799]

Main Entry: in·fi·del http://m-w.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?infide01.wav=infidel'))
Pronunciation: <TT>'in-f&-d<SUP>&</SUP>l, -f&-"del</TT>
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English infidele, from Middle French, from Late Latin infidelis unbelieving, from Latin, unfaithful, from in- + fidelis faithful -- more at FIDELITY (http://m-w.com/dictionary/fidelity)
1 : one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity
2 a : an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion b : one who acknowledges no religious belief
3 : a disbeliever in something specified or understood
- infidel adjective


Here is also wikipedia on the word: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infidel

My challenge still stands.

[MakoZeroSix]

You guys can bait each other and argue semantics all day, and it's completely irrelevant. You can use the word "Fascism" to describe the evil that has metastacized over here, or not. It is what it is. The issue at hand is if we have the will, politically, morally and socially to crush it.
Do you think the Iraqi who is chain whipped at an illegal checkpoint because he has a spare tire in his trunk (thus defying the will of Allah that his car may break down) cares about semantics? Or the one who is shot to death because he is seen eating a salad with cucumbers mixed with tomatoes (something that looks like a penis mixed with...something that can be construed as vagina like)?
The people who perpetrate these outrages, mostly against their fellow arab, reguardless if you call them Salafists, Taqfiris, or Islamo-Fascists, cannot be bargained, bartered or reasoned with. They must be destroyed. Right now we don't have the will to do so. Do you think they debate amongst themselves if its politically correct to call us the "great satan"?
How many powerpoint slides do you think one of them has to fill out before he can set an IED on my ass? Zero. How many levels of his chain of command must approval of his RPG ambush go through? None. Does Al-Qaeda send back his plan of action after legions of his fellow terrorists have squinted at it and thrown in completely ridiculous criticisms or spelling corrections?
The point is, these people are our enemy, and we endlessly doubt ourselves and wring our hands and debate semantics. We try to fight them within a completely unwieldy and unrealistic set of rules so we, and he has no rules. Precious few victories are witnessed from the moral high ground.

[fish78]

First, I totally agree, they by any name, must be destroyed now. But, the war is in no way confined to Iraq and Afghanistan, it is in Europe, and frankly, it is all over the globe and it must be fought all over the globe and until the rest of the world realizes the threat for what is, this will not happen. Yes, I think the will is there, but the threat must be exposed for what it is and what its larger goal is...

[Jimbo]

How many levels of his chain of command must approval of his RPG ambush go through?

Depends on what kind of RPG it is.

[Greenhat]

You guys can bait each other and argue semantics all day, and it's completely irrelevant. You can use the word "Fascism" to describe the evil that has metastacized over here, or not. It is what it is. The issue at hand is if we have the will, politically, morally and socially to crush it.
Do you think the Iraqi who is chain whipped at an illegal checkpoint because he has a spare tire in his trunk (thus defying the will of Allah that his car may break down) cares about semantics? Or the one who is shot to death because he is seen eating a salad with cucumbers mixed with tomatoes (something that looks like a penis mixed with...something that can be construed as vagina like)?
The people who perpetrate these outrages, mostly against their fellow arab, reguardless if you call them Salafists, Taqfiris, or Islamo-Fascists, cannot be bargained, bartered or reasoned with. They must be destroyed. Right now we don't have the will to do so. Do you think they debate amongst themselves if its politically correct to call us the "great satan"?
How many powerpoint slides do you think one of them has to fill out before he can set an IED on my ass? Zero. How many levels of his chain of command must approval of his RPG ambush go through? None. Does Al-Qaeda send back his plan of action after legions of his fellow terrorists have squinted at it and thrown in completely ridiculous criticisms or spelling corrections?
The point is, these people are our enemy, and we endlessly doubt ourselves and wring our hands and debate semantics. We try to fight them within a completely unwieldy and unrealistic set of rules so we, and he has no rules. Precious few victories are witnessed from the moral high ground.

You do realize that more Muslims are fighting on our side in the GWOT than there are troops in the entire US military?

[1799]

You guys can bait each other and argue semantics all dayNah, it's all in a good spirit. The subject is sensitive, granted, but it has to be discussed. A bit too much semantics, but sometimes semantics contains a message if you are paying attention to details.

Do you think the Iraqi who is chain whipped at an illegal checkpoint because he has a spare tire in his trunk (thus defying the will of Allah that his car may break down) cares about semantics? Or the one who is shot to death because he is seen eating a salad with cucumbers mixed with tomatoes (something that looks like a penis mixed with...something that can be construed as vagina like)?
Sounds extremely unlikely. Your source?

The people who perpetrate these outrages, mostly against their fellow arab, reguardless if you call them Salafists, Taqfiris, or Islamo-Fascists, cannot be bargained, bartered or reasoned with. They must be destroyed.
How many people exactly do you propose to destroy? This is not the matter of semantics.

Do you think they debate amongst themselves if its politically correct to call us the "great satan"?
Yes. (do you think this is the only site I am on? :cool: )

How many powerpoint slides do you think one of them has to fill out before he can set an IED on my ass? Zero. How many levels of his chain of command must approval of his RPG ambush go through? None. Does Al-Qaeda send back his plan of action after legions of his fellow terrorists have squinted at it and thrown in completely ridiculous criticisms or spelling corrections? It's quite likely that they have less beurocracy and red tape, being more loosely organized.

[Infanteer]

Interesting thread. I'm not a fan of the "Islamofascist" tag - seems like a politically loaded term. The Fascists were a bunch of Italian dudes, so why stretch the definition so much so as to fit onto something completely foreign (which Mr Hanson is guilty of on multiple occasions)? Call it what it is - militant Islam.

Another reason I dislike the "Islamofascist" tag is that it (again, being a loaded term) tends to box in our understanding of the enemy by bringing in preconceived notions that come with the word Fascist - there are so many strands of militant Islam that to put them under banner of "Islamofascist" blurs the true nature of each strand and subsequently, ideas on possible ways to approach them (insert some Sun Tzu quote about understanding your enemy here).

For example, Marc Sageman in Understanding Terrorist Networks (http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Terror-Networks-Marc-Sageman/dp/0812238087/sr=1-1/qid=1159719124/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2949971-5822314?ie=UTF8&s=books) properly (IMHO) lays out how the modern Al Qa'ida types can be termed "Global Salafist". Now, does this mean that "Global Salafism" = Fascism and that every dude burning an American flag and yelling Allahu Akbar is an Islamofascist? No. The Taliban Pashtun coming from the Madrassas are far different from the loner student Arab living in the West who suddenly goes hardcore and flys a plane into a building. And neither of these are the same as the Hamas or Hezbollah militant aiming at Israelis, nor are any of these similar to a Chechen who travels to Iraq to kill Americans - nor are these the same as some devout Iraqi who had his brother killed or his honor slandered and gets caught up with an organization like Ansar al-Sunnah. You see the point yet? Islam is not a20th century prescriptive, nationalist ideology like Fascism (that's more akin to the Ba'athists - but I digress); it is large and multi-faceted faith. Don't box it into some crappy buzzword to make it fit your notions of how the enemy thinks.

On a second point KidA, you stated that you believed OBL could care less about Islam and simply uses it to serve his own personnel ends. Don't you think that Michael Scheuer's description of him as a truely devout Muslim is pretty convincing? I can't think of many self-serving types that would dedicate themselves to their cause in the way that he has - it seems to me that he's running on pure faith. The guys that don't give a fuck about Islam are the sheiks sending money to front organizations while driving around Dubai in their Benz's with their Russian prostitutes. OBL seems, in my opinion, to be one of the true believers who's dedicated himself to a cause he sees as just.

[1799]

Bravo Infanteer. You've said so much more in so much less words. I have nothing to add.

[mdb23]

This thread reminds me of a debate that I heard on the radio the other day (can't remember who or what program).

Anyway, there was a moderate Muslim on the program who was stating that, in his opinion, the terms, labels, and spoken justifications used by our administration are extremely counterprouctive to "winning" the GWOT.

For example, he cited the fact that Bush routinely says, "We are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." While that may sound good to the average American, imagine that you are a moderate Muslim living in Iraq, or the ME for that matter. To that moderate Muslim, Bush is saying that your life, safety, and ability to live in a country free of war, IED attacks, and constant fear is a secondary concern.... better you than us. It places Muslims on a "second class" status to Americans (who are viewed as largely Christian). It can cause the average (moderate) Iraqi to turn on the US for choosing his homeland as the battleground to confront terrorism, especially if he has lost family or friends as a result.

Bush also says, "If you are not with us, you are against us." Once again, good for the American audience, but when the moderate Muslim hears it, and thinks to himslef, "Well, I'm not really with you on this, so............"

How about, "Bring it on." Remember that jewel? Well, once again, if you are an Iraqi who is living with a war in your backyard, those words can be infuriating. You don't want insurgents to "bring it on," and you see this challenge as Bush (and the Americans) as not caring about your life or that of your family.......

The use of the term "Islamofascist" as discussed here, can have similar effects on the outlook of the moderate Muslim, as it can be seen as a condemnation of his religion, and merely plays into the extremist view that America is waging a crusade.

Long story short, he was arguing that if the administration truly wants the support of moderate Muslims in the ME, then it needs to remember that the entire world hears its words, and not just the American audience. The admin would be much better served if it got rid of the extremely divisive lingo and mantras.

I thought he had some valid points. Any thoughts?

[Greenhat]

On a second point KidA, you stated that you believed OBL could care less about Islam and simply uses it to serve his own personnel ends. Don't you think that Michael Scheuer's description of him as a truely devout Muslim is pretty convincing? I can't think of many self-serving types that would dedicate themselves to their cause in the way that he has - it seems to me that he's running on pure faith. The guys that don't give a fuck about Islam are the sheiks sending money to front organizations while driving around Dubai in their Benz's with their Russian prostitutes. OBL seems, in my opinion, to be one of the true believers who's dedicated himself to a cause he sees as just.


Since I agree with KidA, I'll take a stab at this one.

As directed by Mohammed himself, and confirmed multiple times by those who fought wars for Islam in the centuries following the death of Mohammed... the "people of the book" are to be allowed to worship and live in accordance with their beliefs. The people of the book are Christians and Jews. So, obviously, OBL is not a devout Muslim.

[Greenhat]

I thought he had some valid points. Any thoughts?


Sounds like he did. I'd be very interested in reading a transcript.

One of the things I always find interesting about these discussions are the people who expect others to respond in the way they would, without recognizing the realities of cultural differences, language differences, etc.

We talk about a "Global Economy". Well, we also have "Global Communications", and it seems that the politicians at all levels and around the world haven't done a very good job of keeping that in mind.

[fish78]

Suggest some language that WOULD be constructice.

[chiron]

Chiron, what in your uncle's opinion was the role of Israelis?

How accurate is this depiction?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/audio_video/programmes/panorama/transcripts/transcript_17_06_01.txt


My uncle is somewhere in between the U.A.E. and India. It would be a while before I can answer that. I have not been able to get anything out of him regarding that in the past.

Ariel Sharon I understand ordered the hit on the camps without guarantee but that’s my understanding. During the civil war the enemies of the Phalange were the enemies if Israel so things went both ways.

As to the accuracy of the attacherment I don't know.

End of story.

[chiron]

First, I totally agree, they by any name, must be destroyed now. But, the war is in no way confined to Iraq and Afghanistan, it is in Europe, and frankly, it is all over the globe and it must be fought all over the globe and until the rest of the world realizes the threat for what is, this will not happen. Yes, I think the will is there, but the threat must be exposed for what it is and what its larger goal is...

I have been in Greece for 16 years. Been in England, Germany and Switzerland. It seems that the Muslim communities tend to avoid melting into the community. They remain segregated from the rest with a definite distance from all Christian communities. In all cases they have become the blue-collar work force. The white-collar work force and in fact the entire community became reliant to them. In Germany a friend in Hamburg tells me that they can’t do without the Turkish garbage man or the Pakistani taxi driver. So they are actively becoming a separate community with in Europe. In Greece we are full of Muslim workers. Although they are not in the community in that they can’t vote they have power. They have the Europeans by the short hairs.

One day I predict a big bang in Europe.

[MakoZeroSix]

You do realize that more Muslims are fighting on our side in the GWOT than there are troops in the entire US military?
__________________

Of course. Never said there wasn't. In fact, my point involved how muslims suffer from this bullshit on an everyday basis more than we do. Now as far as the effectiveness of organized Muslim military forces as opposed to the insurgents...perhaps you've never seen the Afghan National Army or Iraqi Army in action. The half of their ranks who aren't working for AQIZ or JAM or other nefarious elements are inept at best. Maybe the armies of Jordan and Egypt and other nations aren't half-assed, I don't know. Either way, in my experience Arabs make great guerillas but terrible soldiers. That doesn't play to our advantages the way we are going about this thing.

Sounds extremely unlikely. Your source?


My source? Gee, I don't know, maybe the Iraqis I talk to on a daily basis who have tears in their eyes as they relate these horrors to me. Maybe the guy I know with the names of 30 family members scrawled on his living room wall that were butchered because he dared help the Americans. Who are you to doubt my information? I'm here, in the middle of it, you're in goddamned Russia.

[1799]

My source? Gee, I don't know, maybe the Iraqis I talk to on a daily basis who have tears in their eyes as they relate these horrors to me. Maybe the guy I know with the names of 30 family members scrawled on his living room wall that were butchered because he dared help the Americans. Who are you to doubt my information? I'm here, in the middle of it, you're in goddamned Russia.

Umm I realize you are in the heat of things, but I think you may want to watch your language a bit. Personal insults are cool; epitets directed at each other's countries, flags, that sort of things are not IMHO.

BTW, Russia, unlike the USA, has centuries of relationships with Muslims... All kinds of them. I, for one, have grown up among Muslims, in part... have read Koran and quite a few Hadiths... been on a few Muslim mailing lists.. talked to Muslims of all ethnicities and orientations... but of course, being in Iraq makes you an expert.

I believe you 110% when you speak of an Iraqi whose family was butchered once he was seen around Americans. The story with the spare tire and the salad still don't make sense to me.

Arabs have a wonderful saying: "Trust in God, but tie your camel".

I do remember a story about an Iranian or Saudi "virtue police" or whatever they are called, saying to a woman in a mall who was eating ice cream: "Don't lick it like that!". In his mind, the way she was licking that ice cream was not very virtuous. As she did not know how else to eat an ice cream, she just waited for the ice cream to melt. That, too, sounds very believable.

[1799]

As directed by Mohammed himself, and confirmed multiple times by those who fought wars for Islam in the centuries following the death of Mohammed... the "people of the book" are to be allowed to worship and live in accordance with their beliefs. The people of the book are Christians and Jews. So, obviously, OBL is not a devout Muslim.

Muhammad himself has fought against both Christians and Jews.

There is a strict procedure in Islam for who and when can declare Jihad. To declare it, Muslims must be oppressed on their own land by non-Muslims. This being the case, it's the obligation of every capable Muslim to come to help. OBL made this case and has convinced some Muslims.

[MakoZeroSix]

BTW, Russia, unlike the USA, has centuries of relationships with Muslims...
Kinda like the relationship with them you're having now in Chechnya...how's that working out for ya?

I, for one, have grown up among Muslims, in part... have read Koran and quite a few Hadiths... been on a few Muslim mailing lists.. talked to Muslims of all ethnicities and orientations... but of course, being in Iraq makes you an expert.



BFD. I grew up in New York City, amongst people of all nationalities and religions. That didn't make me an expert. I'll tell you what does- Having been married to a Shiite girl from Beirut. Living with her family in D.C. for 2 years. Oh, yeah, and fighting the GWOT since 9/11, in the "unconventional" capacity. But I guess being unemployed in Moscow and having taken an anthropology course once eclipses that. Sorry the story about the spare tire didn't "make sense" to you. I'm sure it didn't to the guy it happened to either.

[mdb23]

Suggest some language that WOULD be constructice.

How about we say that we owe it to the liberated Iraqi people to make sure that they have a safe, stable country? Sounds a helluva lot better than the "better to tear up your house than mine" message that I repeatedly hear on the news.

How about we don't give moderates the idea that if they aren't with us 100%, then they are our enemy?

Imagine that you live next door to two brothers... one is an absolute asshole, and the other is a decent guy. One day, the decent guy kicks in your front door, drags his asshole brother in, and they start to fight. They tear your house to shit during the process, and one even falls on your kid and breaks his arm.

When you ask what the hell is going on, the decent brother says, "Well, I would rather fight him in your house than mine....... I don't want my house destroyed."

Would you be pissed? I would.... I wouldn't care that the brother was an asshole, or that he deserved an asskicking. As a matter of fact, I would want to kick the decent brother's ass for deciding that it was better to fight on my property than his. Make sense?

Take that to a larger scale. How many Iraqi civilians have been killed? Over 100K? Now imagine that you are a moderate Iraqi who initially supported the US, and that you have lost family members in the war. Next thing you know, you hear Bush on TV saying, "Better to fight them over there than in the US." Would you be offended? Would you want the US out?

The point that the commentator was trying to make was that Bush's statements are geared solely to appease his US audience. These same statements are heard by the Muslim community, and are highly offensive and may in fact be fueling the insurgency.

So on one hand, Bush is trying to sell the US on staying in the war, and at the same time is inciting more and more moderates to take up arms against the US. Kinda counterproductive, don't you think?


I'm no PR genius, but even I can see what the guy is saying.

[KidA]

Since I agree with KidA, I'll take a stab at this one.

As directed by Mohammed himself, and confirmed multiple times by those who fought wars for Islam in the centuries following the death of Mohammed... the "people of the book" are to be allowed to worship and live in accordance with their beliefs. The people of the book are Christians and Jews. So, obviously, OBL is not a devout Muslim.

This is true. The way I was thinking of it was this way: he's an egomaniac and has delusions of grandeur. He's from a wealthy, powerful family and probably has some issues with them stemming from something, I have no idea what. He turned to Islam and due to his egomania is manipulating its message to his own personal will and belief. As Fred Phelps has shown, you can take anything out of religious books and turn it into vile hatred. OBL is no different. He's on a mission and probably at this point believes that he's doing Allah's will, much as that crazy woman who killed her kids recently believed she was doing God's, but that doesn't mean in any of these cases that it is indeed Allah's or God's or any religious figures "will."

[fish78]

How about we say that we owe it to the liberated Iraqi people to make sure that they have a safe, stable country? Sounds a helluva lot better than the "better to tear up your house than mine" message that I repeatedly hear on the news.

How about we don't give moderates the idea that if they aren't with us 100%, then they are our enemy?

Imagine that you live next door to two brothers... one is an absolute asshole, and the other is a decent guy. One day, the decent guy kicks in your front door, drags his asshole brother in, and they start to fight. They tear your house to shit during the process, and one even falls on your kid and breaks his arm.

When you ask what the hell is going on, the decent brother says, "Well, I would rather fight him in your house than mine....... I don't want my house destroyed."

Would you be pissed? I would.... I wouldn't care that the brother was an asshole, or that he deserved an asskicking. As a matter of fact, I would want to kick the decent brother's ass for deciding that it was better to fight on my property than his. Make sense?

Take that to a larger scale. How many Iraqi civilians have been killed? Over 100K? Now imagine that you are a moderate Iraqi who initially supported the US, and that you have lost family members in the war. Next thing you know, you hear Bush on TV saying, "Better to fight them over there than in the US." Would you be offended? Would you want the US out?

The point that the commentator was trying to make was that Bush's statements are geared solely to appease his US audience. These same statements are heard by the Muslim community, and are highly offensive and may in fact be fueling the insurgency.

So on one hand, Bush is trying to sell the US on staying in the war, and at the same time is inciting more and more moderates to take up arms against the US. Kinda counterproductive, don't you think?


I'm no PR genius, but even I can see what the guy is saying.I understood the point of the article, I was serious. Someone needs to suggest some exact language that will both rally the Americana and not alienate the moderate Muslims and apparently the rest of the World.

[mdb23]

I understood the point of the article, I was serious. Someone needs to suggest some exact language that will both rally the Americana and not alienate the moderate Muslims and apparently the rest of the World.

I gave you exact language.

[Greenhat]

Of course. Never said there wasn't. In fact, my point involved how muslims suffer from this bullshit on an everyday basis more than we do. Now as far as the effectiveness of organized Muslim military forces as opposed to the insurgents...perhaps you've never seen the Afghan National Army or Iraqi Army in action. The half of their ranks who aren't working for AQIZ or JAM or other nefarious elements are inept at best. Maybe the armies of Jordan and Egypt and other nations aren't half-assed, I don't know. Either way, in my experience Arabs make great guerillas but terrible soldiers. That doesn't play to our advantages the way we are going about this thing.

Arabs are a minority of Muslims.

[Greenhat]

Muhammad himself has fought against both Christians and Jews.

There is a strict procedure in Islam for who and when can declare Jihad. To declare it, Muslims must be oppressed on their own land by non-Muslims. This being the case, it's the obligation of every capable Muslim to come to help. OBL made this case and has convinced some Muslims.

Where is the authority to strike at non-combatants on far-away lands?

Btw, from what I understand, just about every Iman who has taken the time to assess it says that OBL has not fulfilled the procedure. However, the procedure has been fulfilled by those Muslims who have declared war on terrorism.

[Kretin II.]

As directed by Mohammed himself, and confirmed multiple times by those who fought wars for Islam in the centuries following the death of Mohammed... the "people of the book" are to be allowed to worship and live in accordance with their beliefs. The people of the book are Christians and Jews. So, obviously, OBL is not a devout Muslim.


This is quite correct, but only under the pretext that they have been brought under Islamic Rule.
Whether the enemies´ wife and children (read today: civilians ) are to be considered fair game during times of strife or not is actually subject of much controversy within the Umma. This has became a major issue since 9/11, and countless conflicting Fatwas have been published, ranging from the most sincere disapproval to wholehearted agreement. Al-Quaradawi and the Muslim brotherhood for example represent the latter perspective. There are precedents...The hashahun being only the most prominent.
During the formative period of Saudi-Arabia, the Salafite Ichwan actually killed without regard of age or gender, the victims being Shiites as well as Sunnites.
So bottom line: OBL ´s killing of "western" civilians does not constitute a valid case against him being a devout muslim. His endorsement of killing fellow muslims or at least his acceptance to consider them collateral damage however certainly does so in the eyes of mainstream Islam.

[smp52]

Arabs are a minority of Muslims.

Ditto.

Top sixty countries by population and percent majority. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country#Top_sixty)


Muslims by continent and region. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country#By_region)

[RickyRecon]

Many fail to understand what is called the "Theory of Abrogation" which stated that Allah revealed the Quran to Mohammad in stages, each successive stage effectively "overruling" or Abrogating, the previous. Therefore, all of the peacefull versus about living in harmony with "people of the book" were written during the "Mecca" phase of Mohammad's life, but where abrogated by such Surahs, as "kill the unbelievers wherever they may be found" which were written during the later, "Medina" phase of Mohammads life.

Personally, I could care less if the "language" of our struggle is "offensive" to these people. I find their propensity for slaughter to be offensive. And yes, they are either with us, or against us, there is no room for any middle ground.

[fish78]

I gave you exact language.I believe the president needs more than one sentence that deals exclusively with Iraq.


How about we say that we owe it to the liberated Iraqi people to make sure that they have a safe, stable country?

Furher, I strongly suspect he has expressed that very sentiment.

[fish78]

http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20061001-124245-8896r

Essay critical of Islam leaves teacher on run

By Tom Heneghan
REUTERS NEWS AGENCY
October 1, 2006
PARIS -- A French teacher hiding from Islamist death threats says he has been abandoned by the Education Ministry and has to arrange for his own safe houses when police bodyguards move him every two days.
Robert Redeker went underground after publishing an attack on Islam on Sept. 19, in which he called the Koran "a book of incredible violence" and Islam's prophet Muhammad "a merciless warlord, a looter, a butcher of Jews and a polygamist."
Islam, Mr. Redeker said, "exalts violence and hate."
Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said the threats against Mr. Redeker, who teaches philosophy in a suburban Toulouse high school, were intolerable and showed that "we live in a dangerous world that is often marked by intolerance."
The threats came amid widespread criticism of Pope Benedict XVI by Muslims who accused him of implying in a speech that Islam was violent. And they coincided with the cancellation of a Mozart opera in Berlin out of fear of Muslim protests.
Speaking from an undisclosed location last week, Mr. Redeker, 52, said he felt alone and abandoned. "The Education Ministry has not deigned to contact me to ask if I need any help," he said.
Mr. Redeker told Europe 1 radio he had no regrets and that asking critical questions was his job as a philosophy teacher.
French Muslim Council head Dalil Boubakeur denounced the threats and said: "Nobody can take the law into his own hands."
Two large teachers unions issued statements supporting Mr. Redeker and free speech. One stressed it did so "even though we do not share his convictions."
The press-watchdog group Reporters Without Borders said Mr. Redeker's article may have been shocking, but added: "If Le Figaro had chosen not to publish this text ... it would have been a defeat for the freedom of thought."
Le Figaro is a major French newspaper.
Paris police undertook an investigation into a possible terrorist link behind the threats, judicial sources said.
In his article, Mr. Redeker also defended Benedict from Muslim critics outraged by a speech he gave on Sept. 12. The pope said his speech had been misunderstood.
Mr. Redeker said his wife was living in hiding with him under protection by police and the DST domestic intelligence agency.
"My security is assured, but the logistics are not," he said. "I have to find myself a place to sleep at night or live for a day or two."
In a separate interview, Mr. Redeker told Le Figaro the threats included "a map showing how to get to my home, with pictures of me and where I work and my telephone numbers."
He said he could not imagine coming out of hiding and resuming his teaching job any time soon.
"I will have to move homes and live somewhere else, where I will now be forced to remain anonymous in my own country," he said.
"The Islamists have succeeded in punishing me on French territory as if I were guilty of a crime of opinion."

[VelociMorte]

"Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. ...Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors!"


Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini: Islam Is Not a Religion of Pacifists (1942)

[Greenhat]

Using Khomeini as a expert source? Most of the Arab world and the large majority of the Islamic world considered him a nutcase. I don't think you've made much of a point.

[VelociMorte]

Using Khomeini as a expert source? Most of the Arab world and the large majority of the Islamic world considered him a nutcase. I don't think you've made much of a point.


See http://www.socnetcentral.com/vb/showpost.php?p=798060&postcount=80

While I'm no expert on Islam, I do recognize a pattern of events perpetrated by Muslims who seem to have no trouble using their religion as justification for hostile acts. I've also noticed a pattern of silence from "mainstream" Islam when it comes to condemning these hostile acts perpetrated in the name of "Islam". Call me kooky, but I can't remember when the last time a group of Hindus or Buddists hacked up a village full of women and children with machetes for believing in a different religion.

"Most of the Arab world and the large majority of the Islamic world..." may consider Khomeini "...a nutcase.", but the point is that he, while espousing sex with children and animals, was able to rise to power, and become a revered "holy man" in one of the most modern Islamic States. That in itself says a lot about Islamic culture and Islam as a whole. Where's the Muslim outrage at the "hijacking of Islam" by terrorists? There is none, because there is no argument, from a Muslim perspective, against it. To disagree with the "peaceful religion" of Islam is death.

While some Muslim nations may be our allies in the GWOT, there are certainly motivating factors behind their decisions, other than just being good buddies with Ol' Uncle Sam. A few billion in freshly printed dollars buys a lot of support, as does the threat of "you're either with us, or with the terrorists". Pakistan's a good example. "Walking a tight-rope" is a good way to describe that particular situation. While the Pak government may be our ally, try going for a walk in the Tribal Areas. The people feel a little differently about it.

[RickyRecon]

Well said VelociMorte

[1799]

OK, MakoZeroSix, then explain the Shariah grounds for such punishment.

Kinda like the relationship with them you're having now in Chechnya...how's that working out for ya?
Chechnya, Afghanistan, Bin Laden... I've never said it's all smooth. I said, we've been rubbing elbows a lot over the centuries.

BFDBinary File Descriptor? Der Berufsförderungsdienst der Bundeswehr? bidirectional forwarding detection? Brute Force Detection? Bibliothèque de la Faculté de droit? Brewed Fresh Daily? Google is not my friend today.

[Greenhat]

See http://www.socnetcentral.com/vb/showpost.php?p=798060&postcount=80

While I'm no expert on Islam, I do recognize a pattern of events perpetrated by Muslims who seem to have no trouble using their religion as justification for hostile acts. I've also noticed a pattern of silence from "mainstream" Islam when it comes to condemning these hostile acts perpetrated in the name of "Islam". Call me kooky, but I can't remember when the last time a group of Hindus or Buddists hacked up a village full of women and children with machetes for believing in a different religion.

How about Christians? I can give you a few specific instances if you'd like.

As for the "pattern of silence", I suggest you read

http://www.islam-democracy.org/terrorism_statement.asp
http://www.freemuslims.org/issues/terrorism.php
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1453655/posts
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/CalgarySun/News/2004/09/05/616462.html
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/4/1389A15C-DC77-4735-A2F3-3601A4083C8D.html
http://www.muslimsweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=618&Itemid=67
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/111/story_11121_1.html
http://www.islamfortoday.com/60minutes.htm
http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/pwork/0508/050805.htm
http://www.dawn.com/2005/04/25/int7.htm
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20051115-104933-1683r.htm
http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/895095
http://sptimes.com/2005/09/09/Tampabay/Muslims__TV_ads_denou.shtml
http://bedouina.typepad.com/doves_eye/2005/12/a_few_muslim_de.html
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
http://www.adjab.com/2005/09/08/muslims-denounce-terrorism-in-ad/
http://islam.about.com/cs/currentevents/a/9_11statements.htm

And that is nowhere close to complete. A much more accurate comment would be that the media doesn't bother to give any appreciable coverage to Muslims denouncing terrorists.

"Most of the Arab world and the large majority of the Islamic world..." may consider Khomeini "...a nutcase.", but the point is that he, while espousing sex with children and animals, was able to rise to power, and become a revered "holy man" in one of the most modern Islamic States. That in itself says a lot about Islamic culture and Islam as a whole. Where's the Muslim outrage at the "hijacking of Islam" by terrorists? There is none, because there is no argument, from a Muslim perspective, against it. To disagree with the "peaceful religion" of Islam is death.

Maybe you didn't notice, but Adolf Hitler rose to power and became revered in one of the most modern Christian states. Shall we use Adolf Hitler as an expert on Christianity?

While some Muslim nations may be our allies in the GWOT, there are certainly motivating factors behind their decisions, other than just being good buddies with Ol' Uncle Sam. A few billion in freshly printed dollars buys a lot of support, as does the threat of "you're either with us, or with the terrorists". Pakistan's a good example. "Walking a tight-rope" is a good way to describe that particular situation. While the Pak government may be our ally, try going for a walk in the Tribal Areas. The people feel a little differently about it.

Why don't you go and tell the families of the Indonesians that died in the Bali bombings that?

[1799]

"Most of the Arab world and the large majority of the Islamic world..." may consider Khomeini "...a nutcase.", but the point is that he, while espousing sex with children and animals
Children, yes. After all, Romeo and Juliette were children, too.

Animals??? Even hinting at someone having indulged in this sin is a mortal insult in these parts of the world

Note that 1) Khomeini is neither an Arab nor a Sunnite
2) In the above quote, Khomeini was talking about defensive war ("not waiting until they devour us". Of course, the most heinous crimes on Earth have been committed under the pretext of defence.

[1799]

"Their" language in terms of patriarchal people...

Shed as much blood of your enemies as you want. Crush them. Be very careful not to touch those who are not the enemy though. Once they are completely submissive, shower the survivors with mercy and kindness. Shower your allies with kindness, too. Know the difference between the two. That's the patriarchal way. Neither US nor Israel "gets" it unfortunately.

[1799]

"Their" language in terms of the Iraquis...

Iraquis are no Taliban. They are one of the most ancient cultures on Earth. Perhaps THE most ancient. Many of them are darn smart. You don't need much with them beyond common sense, Golden Rule, respect, treating them as equals, and at least an illusion of concern for their welfare and safety. Unfortunately, all of this is in short supply.. which has alienated even the formerly pro-American segment of the population.

Like every democracy, America has two faces. One for people who vote... another for everyone else.

[RickyRecon]

First off, Romeo and Juliet are fictional characters.

Secondly, I hear the argument, "what about christians?" all the time, but A. I am not a christian and could care less, and B. I do not see Christians flying planes into structures. I am not concerned with the alleged crimes Christians commited centuries ago, I am concerned with the threat on my doorstep today.

"Defensive" war is a misnomer. Since all the world should be under Sharia, anything going against the tenents of Islam is considered an "attack" on Islam itself, therefore any "war" would be defensive in nature.

As for the pattern of silence, I welcome the brave Muslims who speak out against bloodshed. I truly believe, however, that Islam is an inherently violent religion (as provided by example in the pedophile, murdering life of Islam's prophet, Mohammad). Of course, I think all organized religion is folly.

[mangda]

Is the speaker of the Iraqi parliament a 'moderate'?

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Allen, you said we’re making progress. This was the picture on Tuesday when the prime minister of Iraq went to, where? Iran. There he is, meeting, hugging, kissing, the president of Iran. The speaker of the parliament in Iran—Iraq. The speaker of the Iraqi parliament, the Dennis Hastert of Iraq, this is what he said, “The speaker of [the Iraqi] parliament accused ‘Jews’ of financing acts of violence in Iraq in order to discredit Islamists who control the parliament and government so they can install their ‘agents’ in power. ...

“‘Some people say, “We saw you beheading, kidnapping and killing,”’ said the speaker. ‘These acts are not the work of Iraqis. I am sure that he who does this is a Jew and the son of a Jew. I can tell you about these Jewish, Israelis and Zionists who are using Iraqi money and oil to frustrate the Islamic movement in Iraq. ... No one deserves to rule Iraq other than Islamists.’”

That’s the speaker of the parliament. Have we created a fundamentalist Islamic regime in Iraq?

[Greenhat]

Aren't the Arabs descended from Jews?

Sons of Abraham?

[Greenhat]

First off, Romeo and Juliet are fictional characters.

Secondly, I hear the argument, "what about christians?" all the time, but A. I am not a christian and could care less, and B. I do not see Christians flying planes into structures. I am not concerned with the alleged crimes Christians commited centuries ago, I am concerned with the threat on my doorstep today.



I was referring to Christians today...

[chiron]

Essay critical of Islam leaves teacher on run

PARIS -- A French teacher hiding from Islamist death threats

This may be slightly off topic but…

I have two first cousins living in Paris. They are regrettably French with all the grandiose crap that comes with that. I have stopped talking to them long ago because I’m sick and tired of them thinking that their shit doesn’t stink.

Anyway, a few years ago a French Muslim man decided that my cousin, which by the way she is slender cute with bright blue eyes, has to become his wife. She didn’t even know the guy and told him to fuck off. The guy threatened to kill my aunt as well as my cousin. The police came late one night and moved them to another part of town. The Muslim was already stalking them.

I don’t even know the new address. Don’t care to know but the story is indicative of the arrogance the French Muslims have. Soon even more countries will feel this arrogance.

[VelociMorte]

Here's a list of Hostile Fire Areas as of February 2006:

Afghanistan
Algeria
Arabian Sea
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Burundi
Colombia
Cote D’Ivoire
Croatia
Djibouti
East Timor
Egypt
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Georgia, Republic of
Greece (Athens)
Gulf of Aden
Gulf of Oman
Haiti
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Jordan
Kenya
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Lebanon
Liberia
Macedonia
Malaysia
Montenegro
Oman
Pakistan
Persian Gulf
Philippines
Qatar
Red Sea
Rwanda
Saudi Arabia
Serbia
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Strait of Hormuz
Sudan
Syria
Tajikistan
Turkey
Uganda
United Arab Emirates UAE
Uzbekistan
Yemen
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of
Zaire


The vast majority of these Countries/Areas has a majority Muslim population, or is involved in a conflict with Muslim extremists.

[chiron]

If Greece is a Hostile Fire Area I would like to know why? Because N17 before being jailed succeeded in killing a few American I think 5 or 6 in the past 20 years. :rolleyes:

I drive a RAV 4 with a 75th regiment rear window sticker (A big sticker)
This past June Spartan and family from AR.com came to visit. No issues.

More murders go on in NY and or London than all of Greece. :rolleyes:

[VelociMorte]

If Greece is a Hostile Fire Area I would like to know why? Because N17 before being jailed succeeded in killing a few American I think 5 or 6 in the past 20 years. :rolleyes:

I drive a RAV 4 with a 75th regiment rear window sticker (A big sticker)
This past June Spartan and family from AR.com came to visit. No issues.

More murders go on in NY and or London than all of Greece. :rolleyes:


Bogota is nice too, but drive down the wrong street with your window sticker, and you'll be the next poster-child at someone's security brief.

[KidA]

but the story is indicative of the arrogance the French Muslims have.

No it isn't. the story is indicative of the craziness and arrogance of ONE person who happens to be a French Muslim - if it were indicative of the arrogance of all french Muslims (regardless of where they come from initially?) then every single one of them would be running around insisting that cute, slender, blue-eyed white women marry them.

On Tuesday night, Jonathan B. Howard, 40, shot his way into the house he once shared with his wife, Jacqueline, the couple's three children and his mother-in-law. Howard, who had been estranged from his wife and living in Prince George's County for several months, killed Jacqueline's male visitor, Mark A. Peterson, 41; chased her through the neighborhood and shot her in the leg; and then killed himself with a gunshot to the chest, police said.

Witnesses said Jonathan Howard chased his wife through several neighbors' yards and down the street as she screamed for help. The incident lasted just a few minutes, they said.

...

Jonathan B. Howard had moved out of the two-story house in the pristine St. Mary's County subdivision when he separated from his wife nearly a year ago, but neighbors said the couple seemed to have a good relationship . He often was there to take the children to church or to an amusement park.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092701965.html

Now should I close this singular episode with "this demonstrates the arrogance of Christians when they can't get what they want."

Of course not.

[VelociMorte]

Last time I checked, it was Muslim youth who rioted, beat bystanders, and burned hundreds of cars in the streets of France because they didn't get what they wanted, or were offended by some nonsense or stupidity. Actually, it seems like every month there's a new wave of protests somewhere by Muslims, against everyone else. Whether it's over cartoons, a 16th century quote, rumors of Koran desecration...it's always something. Seems like every month, there's a new Fatwa condemning someone to death, somewhere, for speaking out against or offending Islam/Muslims. It's the only religion I know of where a simple fucking cartoon can get you and your entire family killed. Islam is a violent, repressive, intolerant, expansionist religion.

[fish78]

I have said it before, there are many ways to wage war, not all involve bombs and bullets.

http://www.amazon.com/While-Europe-Slept-Radical-Destroying/dp/0385514727

[KidA]

Last time I checked, it was Muslim youth who rioted, beat bystanders, and burned hundreds of cars in the streets of France because they didn't get what they wanted, or were offended by some nonsense or stupidity. Actually, it seems like every month there's a new wave of protests somewhere by Muslims, against everyone else. Whether it's over cartoons, a 16th century quote, rumors of Koran desecration...it's always something. Seems like every month, there's a new Fatwa condemning someone to death, somewhere, for speaking out against or offending Islam/Muslims. It's the only religion I know of where a simple fucking cartoon can get you and your entire family killed. Islam is a violent, repressive, intolerant, expansionist religion.

No it isn't. Some people's interpretation of it is violent, repressive, intolerant, and expansionist.

There are approximately 7 million Muslims in the United States. When was the last time they were violent and rioted?

[Sigi]

No it isn't. Some people's interpretation of it is violent, repressive, intolerant, and expansionist.

Wouldn't it be nice if more leaders actually denounced the actions of the criminals hi-jacking the religion? Maybe did a little more to change the perception of the religion?

Some have. It is not enough, IMHO.

[Scotty]

I have some friends with Muslim upbringing. I've got nothing against the religion as a whole, but I also don't see anything wrong with expressing yourself with a bobble head, etc. I also don't see any of those 7 million US Muslims saying anything AGAINST the fascist ones.

Except for my friends, most of whom are currently fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan (for us, by the way).

Scotty

[Sigi]

Now should I close this singular episode with "this demonstrates the arrogance of Christians when they can't get what they want."

Of course not.
Apples and oranges. The terrorists have affected entire countries and have caused nations to spend billions and billions of dollars just to combat terrorism. Armies have been mobilized and governments have been toppled because of these guys.

Not even close to the same thing.

[KidA]

Apples and oranges. The terrorists have affected entire countries and have caused nations to spend billions and billions of dollars just to combat terrorism. Armies have been mobilized and governments have been toppled because of these guys.

Not even close to the same thing.

In the example I was countering, the poster wasn't discussing terrorism, but instead condeming tens of thousands of French Muslims and their presumed "arrogance" based on a singular event of one Muslim stalking a pretty white girl.

In the example I used the person who committed the crimes was presumably a "christian" who went on a rampage. As ludicrous as it would be for me to state "see how Christians act" it is equally as ludicrous for the original poster to say that all French Muslims act like the one in the scenario he posted.

[KidA]

Wouldn't it be nice if more leaders actually denounced the actions of the criminals hi-jacking the religion? Maybe did a little more to change the perception of the religion?

Some have. It is not enough, IMHO.

See Greenhat's posting: http://www.socnetcentral.com/vb/showpost.php?p=798139&postcount=88

There are a lot of Muslims doing a lot of things to counter what the radicals are doing.

Doesn't make for good American TV though.

[HoosGhost]

Best post of the thread.

Interesting thread. I'm not a fan of the "Islamofascist" tag - seems like a politically loaded term. The Fascists were a bunch of Italian dudes, so why stretch the definition so much so as to fit onto something completely foreign (which Mr Hanson is guilty of on multiple occasions)? Call it what it is - militant Islam.

Another reason I dislike the "Islamofascist" tag is that it (again, being a loaded term) tends to box in our understanding of the enemy by bringing in preconceived notions that come with the word Fascist - there are so many strands of militant Islam that to put them under banner of "Islamofascist" blurs the true nature of each strand and subsequently, ideas on possible ways to approach them (insert some Sun Tzu quote about understanding your enemy here).

For example, Marc Sageman in Understanding Terrorist Networks (http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Terror-Networks-Marc-Sageman/dp/0812238087/sr=1-1/qid=1159719124/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2949971-5822314?ie=UTF8&s=books) properly (IMHO) lays out how the modern Al Qa'ida types can be termed "Global Salafist". Now, does this mean that "Global Salafism" = Fascism and that every dude burning an American flag and yelling Allahu Akbar is an Islamofascist? No. The Taliban Pashtun coming from the Madrassas are far different from the loner student Arab living in the West who suddenly goes hardcore and flys a plane into a building. And neither of these are the same as the Hamas or Hezbollah militant aiming at Israelis, nor are any of these similar to a Chechen who travels to Iraq to kill Americans - nor are these the same as some devout Iraqi who had his brother killed or his honor slandered and gets caught up with an organization like Ansar al-Sunnah. You see the point yet? Islam is not a20th century prescriptive, nationalist ideology like Fascism (that's more akin to the Ba'athists - but I digress); it is large and multi-faceted faith. Don't box it into some crappy buzzword to make it fit your notions of how the enemy thinks.

On a second point KidA, you stated that you believed OBL could care less about Islam and simply uses it to serve his own personnel ends. Don't you think that Michael Scheuer's description of him as a truely devout Muslim is pretty convincing? I can't think of many self-serving types that would dedicate themselves to their cause in the way that he has - it seems to me that he's running on pure faith. The guys that don't give a fuck about Islam are the sheiks sending money to front organizations while driving around Dubai in their Benz's with their Russian prostitutes. OBL seems, in my opinion, to be one of the true believers who's dedicated himself to a cause he sees as just.

[3dRanger]

Aren't the Arabs descended from Jews?

Sons of Abraham?

They both descended from Abraham, but Abraham was not Jewish. Abraham and his handmaid Hagar had a son Ishmael. Arabs came from Ishmael. Abraham and his wife Sarai had a son Isaac. Jews came from Isaac. Abraham is considered the father of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

[Sigi]

They both descended from Abraham, but Abraham was not Jewish. Abraham and his handmaid Hagar had a son Ishmael. Arabs came from Ishmael. Abraham and his wife Sarai had a son Isaac. Jews came from Isaac. Abraham is considered the father of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
And people look at ME funny when I tell them I am Sicilian, not Italian. :D

[1799]

"Defensive" war is a misnomer. Since all the world should be under Sharia, anything going against the tenents of Islam is considered an "attack" on Islam itself, therefore any "war" would be defensive in nature.

Homeini was very clear: "Or should we wait until they devour us". Quoting from the memory. Rhetorics, granted, but he felt the need to say so, when he could have instead just said: "let's fight the infidels until they all submit to the rule of Islam". He did not.

My challenge is still open:

Would someone show a single quote by a contemporary Muslim aspiring for world domination at the edge of a sword.

If the entire SOCNET, with all its collective wisdom and resources, can not come up with a single quote by a single lunatic, then perhaps we should not be so sure?

[Greenhat]

Wouldn't it be nice if more leaders actually denounced the actions of the criminals hi-jacking the religion? Maybe did a little more to change the perception of the religion?

Some have. It is not enough, IMHO.

Not some. Thousands. But it doesn't make much of a story, so the media doesn't run it or runs it on some back page. Not to mention that there are MILLIONS of Muslims fighting on our side in the GWOT.

Someone claimed that the Qur'an was written by Mohammad in different sections. That's untrue. The Qur'an wasn't written down at all until well after Mohammad's death.

And Mohammad was forced from Mecca (around 622) and never conducted any expansion outside of the Arab world. The only military actions he ever conducted were within the Arab world, targeted at the Arab world.

[MakoZeroSix]

I think if you're wondering why we see riots in France and other places by Muslim youths over cartoons and other bullshit, the answer you seek lies in the unfortunate combination of both their religion and their culture, not merely Islam itself. Arabs (and others from the middle east, Persians, Afghans, ect.) tend to be an emotional lot, prone to violent outbursts (usually verbal), and hyperbole. Even the Christian ones. If you've ever lived with them, you know what I mean. They scream and throw things and hit each other all the time. And then they switch from that in an instant to being very loving and kind. If you take that predisposition towards lack of emotional control and merge it with a religion that is somewhat more rigid and intolerant than Christianity and has more people who adhere to its tenets (I'm not a Christian, BTW), you get burning cars and suicide bombs and Fatwas when the conditions are right. In Europe, they know they will have no real opposition. In America, they know they would get their ass handed too them. Plus, most of them live fairly well, and economic prosperity is a rarely a condition from which anarchic violences comes. Only occasionally do you get the same sort of fanaticism with Christianity.
Personally, my kind of Muslims are the ones that drink and party and date women like most of the Christians I know. They pay the same kind of half assed lip service to religion that most Americans do, and are pretty cool because of it. Its the ones that take all the Koran stuff literally, who live in a state of poverty, and live in a place where either literal or moral anarchy reigns, who have a tendency to be dangerous. And there's quite a few of those.
So instead of licking Islam's balls, like liberals and Europeans, we need to be surgically destroying their terror networks while at the same time finding new and innovative ways to flood their culture even more with our products and entertainment. When every middle eastern kid has a nice pair of Air Jordans, a fridge full of Coke and obsesses over MTVs Total Request Live, only then will victory finally be ours. Because that kid won't have the attention span to listen to some idiot in a Madrassa tell fairy tales about paradise and then go strap a suicide vest to himself.

[3dRanger]

Someone claimed that the Qur'an was written by Mohammad in different sections. That's untrue. The Qur'an wasn't written down at all until well after Mohammad's death.

And Mohammad was forced from Mecca (around 622) and never conducted any expansion outside of the Arab world. The only military actions he ever conducted were within the Arab world, targeted at the Arab world.

Mohammad couldn't read or write. The Qur'an was given to him by the angel Gabriel over a five year span. He memorized it and told it to I believe his cousin and sister. They wrote it down. At the time, most Arabs were pagans and didn't much care for Mohammmad's teachings. Mohammad was only 22 years old. Originally Mohammad's teachings were not against Judaism and Christianity, until when he felt the Jews turned their back on him. He then started Islam. After he died, Islam split between those that felt they should follow someone from his bloodline, and those that felt they should follow one of his established leaders. They are still fighting today. The Shiite and the Sunni.

[KidA]

When every middle eastern kid has a nice pair of Air Jordans, a fridge full of Coke and obsesses over MTVs Total Request Live, only then will victory finally be ours. Because that kid won't have the attention span to listen to some idiot in a Madrassa tell fairy tales about paradise and then go strap a suicide vest to himself.


I hardly think that the vacant MTV life is one that we should be proud to export. Our kids are fucked up enough because of consumerism...

[Greenhat]

I hardly think that the vacant MTV life is one that we should be proud to export. Our kids are fucked up enough because of consumerism...

But it does work... MakoZeroSix is on target...

[1799]

...finding new and innovative ways to flood their culture even more with our products and entertainment. When every middle eastern kid has a nice pair of Air Jordans, a fridge full of Coke and obsesses over MTVs Total Request Live, only then will victory finally be ours. Because that kid won't have the attention span to listen to some idiot in a Madrassa tell fairy tales about paradise and then go strap a suicide vest to himself.

Wow. NOW you are speaking their language. That's precizely what they are saying: that you are deliberately destroying their culture, replacing it with Air Jordans, Coke and MTV. And they add to it: alcohol, drugs, porn, abortions, objectifying women, children growing up without fathers... That's what they want to defend themselves against.

[3dRanger]

Wow. NOW you are speaking their language. That's precizely what they are saying: that you are deliberately destroying their culture, replacing it with Air Jordans, Coke and MTV. And they add to it: alcohol, drugs, porn, abortions, objectifying women, children growing up without fathers... That's what they want to defend themselves against.

Wrong. They were "defending" themselves against Judaism and Christianity long before all these things. They don't strap on bombs and fly planes into the WTC to defend themselves. And yes, right or wrong, Mako is correct.

[1799]

Wrong. They were "defending" themselves against Judaism and Christianity long before all these things. They don't strap on bombs and fly planes into the WTC to defend themselves. And yes, right or wrong, Mako is correct. It's not the whole motive of course, but it's the source of even many moderates' mistrust towards the West. They don't want your mass-culture any more than you want their burkas.

If you look at OBL's interviews, he speaks of American support of Israel (which they perceive as an act of aggression againt Muslims on the land of Islam) and, back at the time, American presence in Saudi Arabia. Which is forbidden under Islam, Saudi Arabia being the holy land. (Are Americans still in Saudi Arabia btw? I heard they were out?) There were other, lesser matters involving Muslim countries. All very concrete.

[3dRanger]

It's not the whole motive of course, but it's the source of even many moderates' mistrust towards the West. They don't want your mass-culture any more than you want their burkas.


The "moderates" don't trust our support of Israel. I don't think our culture scares them. Most Arabs given the opportunity would love to have our lifestyle. The leadership likes to keep them ignorant and poor so they can stay in power. UAE, and others seem to be doing just fine with alot of our culture.

[chiron]

Bogota is nice too, but drive down the wrong street with your window sticker, and you'll be the next poster-child at someone's security brief.

See I can drive everywhere in Greece except the north east that has Muslims.
But the rest of Greece is cool.

[KidA]

See I can drive everywhere in Greece except the north east that has Muslims.
But the rest of Greece is cool.


I can drive everywhere in Washington, D.C. except the Southeast and that's because it's 99.9% black.

The rest of D.C. is cool.

:rolleyes:

[chiron]

No it isn't. the story is indicative of the craziness and arrogance of ONE person who happens to be a French Muslim - if it were indicative of the arrogance of all french Muslims (regardless of where they come from initially?) then every single one of them would be running around insisting that cute, slender, blue-eyed white women marry them.

True I stand corrected. However it's not the only story. I showed some bias but then that's me. To many personal experiences have made me sceptical.

[chiron]

I can drive everywhere in Washington, D.C. except the Southeast and that's because it's 99.9% black.

The rest of D.C. is cool.

:rolleyes:

So you have something against African Americans or they against you?

[KidA]

So you have something against African Americans or they against you?

Just stating a fact. If I drive around SE DC I will no doubt be dragged from my car, car-jacked, have a brick thrown through the window, etc. It's an almost 100% certainty.

So, is it because I'm white, they're black, or are there other issues at hand?

[1799]

True I stand corrected. However it's not the only story. I showed some bias but then that's me. To many personal experiences have made me sceptical.

Chiron, I've almost decided to be PC and let you off the hook as an ally, but your posts and this "Islamofascism 101" thread you've started beg for a question: your personal experiences are worse than the cold-blooded massacre of 800 non-combatants your uncle participated in... how?

[3dRanger]

Just stating a fact. If I drive around SE DC I will no doubt be dragged from my car, car-jacked, have a brick thrown through the window, etc. It's an almost 100% certainty.

So, is it because I'm white, they're black, or are there other issues at hand?

It's because they figure since you are riding a Vespa you are an easy target. :D

[chiron]

I don’t care what anyone says Islam and Christianity can never coexist in peace. Proven fact throughout history. War after war it never ends. I’m not even getting into the Jewish issue.

When there are leaders of Muslim nations that publicly announce that Christians will convert to Islam or…. Of course there is the old announcement that they will exterminate the Jews…. Bla bla bla…

It’s rhetoric I understand but it’s for the Muslim public consumption designed to build strength to fight the infidel. Sure it’s also scare tactics but when rhetoric no longer scares what then?

I don’t think that what is the norm for a Muslim country, assassinations of heads of states, bombing soft targets, will work in the west. If you think we can live together, then get ready, for its the norm in Lebanon, Egypt, Sudan, Indonesia and so on and so forth. We don’t mix! The Greek Muslims in northeastern Greece don’t mix with the Christian Greeks. They don’t want to! They just whish that that part of Greece is annexed to a Muslim country.

One thing is for sure and that is that the U.S. way of life can never mix with the Islamic way of life. Aren’t the Arab communities in the various metropolises throughout a good example? 85% of them stay within the confines of their community the rest are the token Arab that will mix for they may be the intellect or politician.

[KidA]

One thing is for sure and that is that the U.S. way of life can never mix with the Islamic way of life.

Tell that to the 7 million Muslims living in the US.

[HoosGhost]

I rate this thread "one star".

[rgrjoe175]

Tell that to the 7 million Muslims living in the US.

Wow - 2% of the population of the US. What % Muslims population of the world? around 26%. % of Muslims in the US compared to the world... less than 0.5%... Yeah KidA tell me about this huge portion of Muslims that exist in the US. That is really meaningful...looking at 0.5%.... your a fucking mathmatical genious.

Your on a roll today :rolleyes:

JP

[fish78]

I rate this thread "one star".
Is that because you have specific disagreements with the conclusions dawn by some or all or just don't think people should express opinions about the war?

[KidA]

Wow - 2% of the population of the US. What % Muslims population of the world? around 26%. % of Muslims in the US compared to the world... less than 0.5%... Yeah KidA tell me about this huge portion of Muslims that exist in the US. That is really meaningful...looking at 0.5%.... your a fucking mathmatical genious.

Your on a roll today :rolleyes:

JP

He said Islamic way of life and US way of life cannot co-exist. 7 million people are proving that it can.

[rgrjoe175]

He said Islamic way of life and US way of life cannot co-exist. 7 million people are proving that it can.

You make that mathmatical assumption all by yourself? No they are not. If the US Muslim population was closer to the same percentage as the world... you could make that argument. But alas, your analytical prowess is fubar... in other words, you have no fucking clue what the hell your talking about.

JP

[KidA]

You make that mathmatical assumption all by yourself? No they are not. If the US Muslim population was closer to the same percentage as the world... you could make that argument. But alas, your analytical prowess is fubar... in other words, you have no fucking clue what the hell your talking about.

JP

Joe - are you saying that the 7 million muslims living in the US are NOT existing in the US under US law and among US citizens?

This isn't a percentage thing. He said they can NOT exist. By living and working and paying taxes and serving in the military Muslims are proving they CAN co-exist with the west.

[HoosGhost]

Is that because you have specific disagreements with the conclusions dawn by some or all or just don't think people should express opinions about the war?

Some of these arguments are akin to me arguing for/against the creation of new laws of thermodynamics, proper procedures for lung transplants or programing accounting software. Uniformed, assinine, inexperienced and uneducated. Some even come across as downright bigoted when casually perused.

[MakoZeroSix]

Wow. NOW you are speaking their language. That's precizely what they are saying: that you are deliberately destroying their culture, replacing it with Air Jordans, Coke and MTV. And they add to it: alcohol, drugs, porn, abortions, objectifying women, children growing up without fathers... That's what they want to defend themselves against.


Yeah, I don't deny that our culture is responsible for all those fucked up things and more. But I promise you that our decadance is light years ahead of their medieval world-view. I'm sure that most women would prefer to be objectified than to be something to be ashamed of and kept under lock and key. Alcohol drugs and porn might not be the best way to lead one's life, but they beat the hell out of being whipped in public because your beard isn't the length of a fist. The problem with this is, of course, that all of our pleasure seeking and wealth induced comfort level has deprived out culture of the desire for victory. They seem to want victory more, because they're lean and hungry. It's only when they become fat and complacent like we are that the will cease to oppose us.
Anyway- as many misgivings as I have about our own culture, this is the way I see it- I'm from New York. That means I'm a Yankees fan. I don't care how much of an asshole George Steinbrenner is, or how we are ruining baseball because of the gigantic payroll, blah blah. I understand why the guy from Boston loves the Red Sox. I don't hate him because he's from Boston. But I hope the Yankees crush Boston's nuts because that's who I am. Perhaps in the next life I'll be born in Boston, or in the middle east, in which case I might be a terrorist. It's all good, baby.
So- "why don't you come along with the home team for the big win. We've got to stick together until this peace craze blows over..."

[rgrjoe175]

Joe - are you saying that the 7 million muslims living in the US are NOT existing in the US under US law and among US citizens?

This isn't a percentage thing. He said they can NOT exist. By living and working and paying taxes and serving in the military Muslims are proving they CAN co-exist with the west.

Are you suffering from brain damage? I seriously want to know. If so, I will quit making fun of you.

The point I was making that has clearly sailed way the fuck over your head, is you are doing the exact same thing he is doing. Making judgments without basis. To assume that the US population of Muslims is representative of all of Islam... is quite frankly...fucking stupid... The same goes for his broadbrush comment... Your both doing the same thing.

You comprehend?????????

JP

[fish78]

Some of these arguments are akin to me arguing for/against the creation of new laws of thermodynamics, proper procedures for lung transplants or programing accounting software. Uniformed, assinine, inexperienced and uneducated. Some even come across as downright bigoted when casually perused.Well, then perhaps it would be worthwhile for you to educate the uninformed, ignorant masses.

[HoosGhost]

Well, then perhaps it would be worthwhile for you to educate the uninformed, ignorant masses. Your gambit, sir, while interesting, would be lost in the noise of a thread that will be deleted soon.

[KidA]

Are you suffering from brain damage? I seriously want to know. If so, I will quit making fun of you.

The point I was making that has clearly sailed way the fuck over your head, is you are doing the exact same thing he is doing. Making judgments without basis. To assume that the US population of Muslims is representative of all of Islam... is quite frankly...fucking stupid... The same goes for his broadbrush comment... Your both doing the same thing.

You comprehend?????????

JP

I'm not saying that the US population of Muslims is representative of ALL of Islam. I'm saying that the US population of Muslims is proof that Islam and the West can co-exist. Sure it's on a smaller scale, but they're still co-existing in the US, with US citizens, and under US law.

The question to answer is WHY can these 7 million people do it?

[Guy]

The question to answer is WHY can these 7 million people do it?They decided to assimililate w/modern societies that accept their right; to practice their religious beliefs!

Stay safe.

[fish78]

Your gambit, sir, while interesting, would be lost in the noise of a thread that will be deleted soon.
So, you find it more constructive to make condescending comments?

[rgrjoe175]

I'm not saying that the US population of Muslims is representative of ALL of Islam. I'm saying that the US population of Muslims is proof that Islam and the West can co-exist. The

Damn dude.... the US population of Muslims does not prove anything. It is not representive enough of Islam to make that statement. If you cant figure that out... I would suggest you go back to school.

JP

[Guy]

Damn dude.... the US population of Muslims does not prove anything. It is not representive enough of Islam to make that statement. If you cant figure that out... I would suggest you go back to school.

JPStay safe.

[Doogie320]

Are you suffering from brain damage? I seriously want to know. If so, I will quit making fun of you.

New signature material right there.

[KidA]

Damn dude.... the US population of Muslims does not prove anything. It is not representive enough of Islam to make that statement. If you cant figure that out... I would suggest you go back to school.

JP

Well maybe the millions of Muslims helping us fight in the GWOT that GreenHat has mentioned numerously is indicative of something.

[Guy]

Well maybe the millions of Muslims helping us fight in the GWOT that GreenHat has mentioned numerously is indicative of something.Don't try and deflect your...."fucked-up, college logic now!":eek:

You started stating stastistics and JP disputed them...here's something for you to ponder...

"DC is about as important to the US as Baghdad is to Iraq!?:o

Stay safe.

[HoosGhost]

So, you find it more constructive to make condescending comments? No, I find it more constructive to discuss such things over beer with open-minded individuals who have relevant experience, education and who avoid inflammatory, reactionary bullshit.

[KidA]

Don't try and deflect your...."fucked-up, college logic now!":eek:

You started stating stastistics and JP disputed them...here's something for you to ponder...

"DC is about as important to the US as Baghdad is to Iraq!?:o

Stay safe.

JP is saying the statistics don't mean anything. I disagree.

The original point is that someone said that Islam and the West cannot co-exist. My point is that 7 million Muslims living in the US, there are a few million here and there in other Western nations like the UK.

Whether 7 million, or 9 million or 20 million is a statistical population sample is irrelevant. The fact is that there are millions of Muslims co-existing in the West which disproves the point that Muslims and the West cannot co-exist.

If Islam and the west couldn't co-exist there wouldn't be ANY Muslims living in the West. rather than the number of Muslims living in Western countries increasing, it would be decreasing. If Islam and the West weren't compatible then the 7 million in the US would be leaving.

[Sigi]

No, I find it more constructive to discuss such things over beer with open-minded individuals who have relevant experience, education and who avoid inflammatory, reactionary bullshit.
Ya know, with your credentials this would seem to be a good thread for you to diplay a little more of your intelligence than backhanded remarks.

[Guy]

JP is saying the statistics don't mean anything. I disagree.

The original point is that someone said that Islam and the West cannot co-exist. My point is that 7 million Muslims living in the US, there are a few million here and there in other Western nations like the UK.

Whether 7 million, or 9 million or 20 million is a statistical population sample is irrelevant. The fact is that there are millions of Muslims co-existing in the West which disproves the point that Muslims and the West cannot co-exist.

If Islam and the west couldn't co-exist there wouldn't be ANY Muslims living in the West. rather than the number of Muslims living in Western countries increasing, it would be decreasing. If Islam and the West weren't compatible then the 7 million in the US would be leaving.My presonal presentation skills are lot better than my written...probably because I can't type worth a sh!T.:o

You can call me at anytime and I'll try to enlighten you.;)

Stay safe.

[HoosGhost]

Ya know, with your credentials this would seem to be a good thread for you to diplay a little more of your intelligence than backhanded remarks.
I already posted by thoughts on the article at the beginning of this thread and I echo Doogie's sentiments: Hanson should stick to the Bronze Age.

Concerning Fish's desire to graft Fascism to Islam: I believe that's a poor idea, as already explained by Infanteer and Greenhat. 'Islamic Fascism' is a neat-little quip for those seeking to stir an emotional/visceral reaction within their audience; it helps those who examine/combat/plan/make policy very little. It is a 'loaded' term and terribly imprecise. Especially since Islam hasn't really ever had much to do with or say about Fascists.

'Virulent Islam' or 'Global Salafism' or 'Reactionary Sunnism', whatever you want to call it, predates Fascism by nearly 500 years. This particular school of Islamic thought is like cancer on the umma. It will take a multitude of specialists assisting a patient who wants to survive, acting in concert via variety of means (both direct and indirect), with a defined plan over a long period of time, to remove the cancer. Our first goal is motivating the patient to desire life without cancer. Terms like 'islamonazi' or 'islamofascist' tend to be a downer for the patient, making treatment that much more difficult to administer. Might even cause the patient to walk away from the physicians trying to 'first do no harm' and assist the patient in healing himself.

Can it all be measured in metrics? No. And that really cheeses off people built on bottom lines, just-in-time delivery, pinching pennies and obsessing about the seizures of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Such people fail to see the wisdom in TE Lawrence's (I paraphrase) "Better [your partner] do it for himself than you do it perfectly".

[fish78]

No, I find it more constructive to discuss such things over beer with open-minded individuals who have relevant experience, education and who avoid inflammatory, reactionary bullshit.
There you go again, denigrating what you perceive to be, without any knowledge, the posters on this thread's education, experience and ability to listen with an open mind. That is condescension.

[fish78]

I already posted by thoughts on the article at the beginning of this thread and I echo Doogie's sentiments: Hanson should stick to the Bronze Age.

Concerning Fish's desire to graft Fascism to Islam: I believe that's a poor idea, as already explained by Infanteer and Greenhat. 'Islamic Fascism' is a neat-little quip for those seeking to stir an emotional/visceral reaction within their audience; it helps those who examine/combat/plan/make policy very little. It is a 'loaded' term and terribly imprecise. Especially since Islam hasn't really ever had much to do with or say about Fascists.

'Virulent Islam' or 'Global Salafism' or 'Reactionary Sunnism', whatever you want to call it, predates Fascism by nearly 500 years. This particular school of Islamic thought is like cancer on the umma. It will take a multitude of specialists assisting a patient who wants to survive, acting in concert via variety of means (both direct and indirect), with a defined plan over a long period of time, to remove the cancer. Our first goal is motivating the patient to desire life without cancer. Terms like 'islamonazi' or 'islamofascist' tend to be a downer for the patient, making treatment that much more difficult to administer. Might even cause the patient to walk away from the physicians trying to 'first do no harm' and assist the patient in healing himself.

Can it all be measured in metrics? No. And that really cheeses off people built on bottom lines, just-in-time delivery, pinching pennies and obsessing about the seizures of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Such people fail to see the wisdom in TE Lawrence's (I paraphrase) "Better [your partner] do it for himself than you do it perfectly".
Now, you are begining to get to the crux of the issue. The question is, as I see it, your goal, the curing of the cancer, the proper goal? Or is the goal sometinhg else entirely? Until a clear goal can be established and agreed upon no plan or set of plans can hope to accomplish the goal.

[Spinner]

I do remember a story about an Iranian or Saudi "virtue police" or whatever they are called, saying to a woman in a mall who was eating ice cream: "Don't lick it like that!". In his mind, the way she was licking that ice cream was not very virtuous. As she did not know how else to eat an ice cream, she just waited for the ice cream to melt. That, too, sounds very believable.


The Mutawan are semi-autonomous, although in many cases they are accompanied by uniformed police to enforce their edicts. Based on what I know from my time in Saudi Arabia and in talking to many folks who have lived there for a considerable amount of time, a Mutawa can be self appointed, in the sense that anybody can 'volunteer' for that role.

Which points to a contradiction in the use of the term Islamo-Facism. Facist states and bodies exert a lot of control through their centralized authority, but Islam doesn't really have any such centralized authority. Sure, Saudi Arabia's ruling family, through the king, consider themselves custodians of the two holy mosques, and the Wahabbi clerics wield a lot of power in that kingdom. But that doesn't necessarily translate into any unified control througout the Muslim world. Anybody can declare themselves a Muslim cleric, there is no real standard for defining who is and who isn't an authority in Islam. Bear in mind, also, the very real schism that exists between the Sunni and Shiite sects, and it becomes clear that Islam is one of the most fragmented major religions in the world.

That's what makes it dangerous, but that's what makes all organized (disorganized?) religions dangerous. Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple probably were never a bonafide threat to most of us, but a it took the murder of a US Congressman and close to 800 other deaths to show just how whacked out it really was. Same with Islam or any other relgion whose adherents take their beliefs to the extreme.

I thought of starting another thread about the "Fatwa-for-cash" scams that have been uncovered recently, but it fits into this thread just as well. Just goes to show that Islam can be as corrupt and venal as any televangelist with his hand out for money.

In the end, I don't think any of these extreme groups can be described as facists, they are simply too decentralized. The sum of their parts, though, are definitely more dangerous than their whole.

[fish78]

If a Caliphate is established there will be such a central authority.

[Guy]

All you fuckers:

Base your theories off of what? Everyone raise your fuckin hand and tell me/us....the last time you've lived/worked amongst the Muslims/Islam?

I'm bowing out because....MakoZeroSix posts make sense:cool:

Stay safe.

[smp52]

Last time I checked, it was Muslim youth who rioted, beat bystanders, and burned hundreds of cars in the streets of France because they didn't get what they wanted, or were offended by some nonsense or stupidity. Actually, it seems like every month there's a new wave of protests somewhere by Muslims, against everyone else. Whether it's over cartoons, a 16th century quote, rumors of Koran desecration...it's always something. Seems like every month, there's a new Fatwa condemning someone to death, somewhere, for speaking out against or offending Islam/Muslims. It's the only religion I know of where a simple fucking cartoon can get you and your entire family killed. Islam is a violent, repressive, intolerant, expansionist religion.

Muslims in Europe have a whole host of issues and it has less to do with Islam itself rather than colonial European mentality, mixed with socialism, and forcing multicultural populations down the throat of local populations without giving the appropriate tools to integrate (opening up the economies rather than handing out pies)

The United States immigration policy, with respect to any culture, has been focused around those that can provide the United States of something with value. We've been skimming the top professional skilled folks from other countries for decades. It results in a different demographic than that of France. The French in their stupid eutopian way (AKA, not pragmatic) allowed massive populations through, yet through their own social welfare systems fed and clothed them (stupid socialist policies) without opening up opportunties for upward mobility (stupid socialist policies). Banning of ANY religious symbols in public schools (stupid 'conformist' policies). What do you get? A volitile mixture that can really be exploited for many purposes.

The 7 million Americans muslims are a different demographic than those from France, Denmark, Saudi, or Indonesia. They are varied mixture, racially, economically, socially, linguistically, etc (not homogenous populations or from one particular area, in france's case, North Africans). If all muslims in the world were representative of the American muslims, this global salafist insurgency wouldn't even exist. Muslims are a diverse group and the ability to exploit their own differences and co-opt them to our vision is essential. Salafists want to unite these muslims from different backgrounds, we've got to stop them.

The tribe has to be their own background first, not Islam (Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indonesian, Saudi, Yemeni, Kurd, Turk, Persian, etc.). Once these populations recongize their own little tribal clique first before that of Islam, we'll have an easier task of island hopping our way through.

[Greenhat]

It's not the whole motive of course, but it's the source of even many moderates' mistrust towards the West. They don't want your mass-culture any more than you want their burkas.

If you look at OBL's interviews, he speaks of American support of Israel (which they perceive as an act of aggression againt Muslims on the land of Islam) and, back at the time, American presence in Saudi Arabia. Which is forbidden under Islam, Saudi Arabia being the holy land. (Are Americans still in Saudi Arabia btw? I heard they were out?) There were other, lesser matters involving Muslim countries. All very concrete.


It's not any of the motive. It's lots of the excuse/lies that avoid the real motive.

If that was the real motive, all they would have to do is isolate themselves. But that isn't what they do. They attack.

I don’t care what anyone says Islam and Christianity can never coexist in peace. Proven fact throughout history. War after war it never ends.


Little historic research might be in order. Islam and Christianity have co-existed, in peace, for a significant part of their existence.

The wars have rarely been about religion, but they have often been about power (the Turks and the Ottoman Empire, the Holy Roman Church and what the Holy See would control...).


One thing is for sure and that is that the U.S. way of life can never mix with the Islamic way of life.

How about the 213 million of Indonesia (Indonesia isn't exactly a backward country)? Or the 174 million of India? The 162 million of Pakistan? Or the 129 million of Bangladesh? Or the 60% that make up the population of Malaysia?

[Greenhat]

If a Caliphate is established there will be such a central authority.


And you know that how?

[Purple36]

Momentary pause please! Someone asked what BFD means and I have arrived to provide you that acronym: Big Fucking Deal.
Carry on with ya'lls debate.

[fish78]

And you know that how?
Well, as I understand Caliphate, the whole idea is to unify under the Caliph.

[fish78]

One group's plan

The aim of Hizb ut-Tahrir is to unite all Muslims in a single pan-Islamic state or caliphate, which will be ruled by a caliph. The group calls for the return in Muslim majority countries to the caliphate which oversaw the so-called golden age of Islam before European imperialism colonised the Middle East."This state would have laws based on the paradigms of Islam, making it a theocratic regime, while concurrently rejecting the concept of clergy in Islam in their draft constitution. The group's proposed economic system has elements similar to socialism, but they claim that an Islamic system is superior to either capitalism and communism.

[RickyRecon]

The wars have rarely been about religion, but they have often been about power

Greenhat has completely nailed the correct!!!

[Greenhat]

Well, as I understand Caliphate, the whole idea is to unify under the Caliph.


Considering that Islam hasn't been able to agree on one leader since Mohammad, the idea that they would agree on one Caliph seems more than a bit far-fetched, wouldn't you say?

[DY]

Considering that Islam hasn't been able to agree on one leader since Mohammad, the idea that they would agree on one Caliph seems more than a bit far-fetched, wouldn't you say?
It's pretty far fetched. But the vision is out there, and plenty of Mallawi are preaching unity. I doubt if a "liberal" point of view would take, but unifying against a common enemy could happen. And if the conflict lasts long enough, (read: GWOT) all the above could evolve.

[1799]

Momentary pause please! Someone asked what BFD means and I have arrived to provide you that acronym: Big Fucking Deal.
Carry on with ya'lls debate.Thank you.

[EATIII]

1799,no thank you,you have not added anything to this since your post#127,it is now at 169, please do not be a shit disturber. Thanks

[Greenhat]

It's pretty far fetched. But the vision is out there, and plenty of Mallawi are preaching unity. I doubt if a "liberal" point of view would take, but unifying against a common enemy could happen. And if the conflict lasts long enough, (read: GWOT) all the above could evolve.


If we ever took the point of view that this war was a religious war, a war against Islam, then we would only be helping to potentially unify 1.4 billion Muslims. That strikes me as not very smart. As long as we recognize that the war is with those who use terrorism, it is much more likely that the schism will remain (especially considering the millions of Muslims fighting on our side in the conflict).

[1799]

Some of these arguments are akin to me arguing for/against the creation of new laws of thermodynamics, proper procedures for lung transplants or programing accounting software. Uniformed, assinine, inexperienced and uneducated. Some even come across as downright bigoted when casually perused.

A perfectly valid observation. The difference is, those trades have their pros who are on top of things. Not so with "soft" sciences. You'd be mistaken to think there are smart people with thick glasses who do all the thinkng for you. If there were, Bush would not have sticked his foot in his mouth with his "Crusade" comment during one of the most important speeches an American president has ever made; Americans would not have behaved in Iraq like a bunch of teenagers who broke into someone's house without any plan or forethought and now hastily deciding what to do next; Russians would not step on their dick in Afghanistan and Chechnya; and Israelis would have prevented the Intifada before it was too late. There are no smart people when it comes to the most important decisions, that's what's scary.

[Greenhat]

There are "Pros" when it comes to counter-terrorism and warfare. Problem is that people and leaders often ignore them.

[1799]

Damn dude.... the US population of Muslims does not prove anything. It is not representive enough of Islam to make that statement. If you cant figure that out... I would suggest you go back to school.

JP
Well, going back to school is always a good idea. I agree that American Muslims (Chinese, Indians, Jews...) who've been in the US for 150 years are not representative of anything; but 1st generation folks are. Especially the majority who immigrated for economical, not ideological reasons.

Furthermore, regardless of whether or not they are representative, the mere existence of millions of "good" Muslims is a proof that the differences are more cultural than religious, and that one can be a very passionate follower of the word of Muhammad and be a good guy with compatible values. Which I believe is the point KidA was making. KidA will correct me if I am wrong.

[1799]

If that was the real motive, all they would have to do is isolate themselves. But that isn't what they do. They attack.
Actually, I believe they would have been perfectly happy to isolate themselves! How do they isolate themselves when there is Israel/Palestine, American forces are all over the Middle East, American puppet regimes ruling against the will of the majority of the citizens, the consequences of the WWII and Cold War still impacting daily lives of people, Afganistan still recovering from what we've done to it, people dying of torture in Chechnya, and the very contemporary map of the Middle East has been arbitrarily carved out by the West.

[1799]

I don’t think that what is the norm for a Muslim country, assassinations of heads of states, bombing soft targets, will work in the west. If you think we can live together, then get ready, for its the norm in Lebanon, Egypt, Sudan, Indonesia and so on and so forth.
It's also the norm in the USA, Israel, Finland, Russia and India, unfortunately. Did I leave someone out? Wait, there have been numerous attempts to assassinate Hitler, so Germany's on the list, too.

But you did not answer me Chiron... yet, I will keep calling you to the task until you either answer my question or stop posting anti-Islamic BS.

Are your uncle's actions in Sabrah and Shatila massacres any better than anything you've accused Muslims of so far? If so, how? If not, what right do you have to speak about how evil Muslims are?

[RickyRecon]

Are your uncle's actions in Sabrah and Shatila massacres any better than anything you've accused Muslims of so far? If so, how? If not, what right do you have to speak about how evil Muslims are?

I am nobody on this board, but you need to change your tone, 1799. Insulting another man's family member during this conversation is not appropriate. No one in ANY war is perfect, and atricities happen on both sides.

The difference is that the terrorists revel in slaughter, while others are shamed by it.

If you need to atack another man's family to get your point across, then you do not have a valid point.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2533702461706761547

But you did not answer me Chiron... yet, I will keep calling you to the task until you either answer my question or stop posting anti-Islamic BS

And who do you think you are?

[Gryfen-FL]

Considering that Islam hasn't been able to agree on one leader since Mohammad, the idea that they would agree on one Caliph seems more than a bit far-fetched, wouldn't you say?
God bless SocNet. I've gotten a hold of The Failure of Political Islam and Policy Focus #59 The Last Marja on tips from the guys here. Shit makes you think. That hurts, but I try to stick it out. How the fuck are they even getting one village together, let alone aspire to world domination?

If it's true that many individuals believe that democracy is inherently weak, and there is no centralized authority for ordaining (for lack of a better term) clerics....then I will graduate Ranger School long before we see a Global Caliphate.

as I recall reading it (this is a rough paraphrase): Democracy is inherently weak because if a leader is elected on a 50.5% majority, there's still 49.5% of the population that doesn't want him. A true leader will be so charismatic that there is no need for democratic process.

[DY]

Originally Posted by 1799
Are your uncle's actions in Sabrah and Shatila massacres any better than anything you've accused Muslims of so far? If so, how? If not, what right do you have to speak about how evil Muslims are?

.. but you need to change your tone, 1799. Insulting another man's family member during this conversation is not appropriate...
If you need to atack another man's family to get your point across, then you do not have a valid point. 1799, it is possible that you were utilizing "uncle" as a persuasion of speech. But it does run dangerously close to a "no comments about family" policy on Socnet. Tread lightly.

[DY]

If we ever took the point of view that this war was a religious war, a war against Islam, then we would only be helping to potentially unify 1.4 billion Muslims. That strikes me as not very smart. As long as we recognize that the war is with those who use terrorism, it is much more likely that the schism will remain (especially considering the millions of Muslims fighting on our side in the conflict).
I can see the sense of that, and am aware of just the stance you speak of. Sometimes it is a strategic stance, other times it is a political one. But regardless of how we choose to see it (or state it), I question how much influence our talk will effect how the enemy does their business. It is the vision of Islamist extremism to maintain a dominant world theocracy. That could only be acheived by unity, even if it's Shiite overpowerring Sunni, or vice-versa.

[rgrjoe175]

Well, going back to school is always a good idea. .

I suggest you do that and stop posting on Socnet. In other words STFU.

JP

[1799]

Edit: I hear you DY, and it's a fair rule, too. Won't happen again. The only reason I jumped at Chiron was because he repeatedly spoke of how FUBAR he thinks Muslims are while at the same time speaking apologetically of one of the Phalangists (leaders?) who was inside Shabra and/or Shatila during the tree days in which 800 men/women/infants were being raped and murdered. Not in the heat of a battle mind you. There was no battle. All the combatants were evacuated as a matter of a US-brokered peace treaty which stipulated specifically that the remaining non-combatants won’t be harmed. Then they borrowed a buldozer with the Star of David on it to dispose of the bodies.

The fact that this person is a relative of Chiron is irrelevant and should not be stressed by me. For which I apologize. My point would have been better made without mentioning this fact.

Atrocities happen, and it's important to police our ranks. Many people here (myself included) wish more Muslims spoke against the extremists in their ranks. What if those Muslims, too, think "attrocities happen on both sides"?

Thanks for the Honest Reporting link... I do have an Israeli citizenship and speak Hebrew. I do not consider myself a "100% Israeli" by any means, having not served in the military, but I am aware of the basic historical facts and interpretations therof.

[1799]

duplicate

[1799]

and another. Sorry.

[HoosGhost]

Now, you are begining to get to the crux of the issue. The question is, as I see it, your goal, the curing of the cancer, the proper goal? Or is the goal sometinhg else entirely? Until a clear goal can be established and agreed upon no plan or set of plans can hope to accomplish the goal.

The goal is curing the patient. Giving him a .45cal headache doesn't solve the problem (writing off Islam, such that the umma truly unites), because the patient can help you in other ways, some of them not so obvious. (see end of post)

I have no beef with the patient; I have an earnest desire to help others and so do other specialists; I am the patient's partner in curing him. I have to explain his options, recommend one and pursue it with his permission. I can't treat the patient if he has no desire to see me, doesn't believe the diagnosis, won't permit me to operate or worse stops treatment. I certainly don't want the patient to die; I'd lose my credibility as a doctor.

I espouse 'first do no harm' and speak of my desire to help people live 'cancer and pain free' (or without extremists causing problems, in a society with liberty).

In the end, curing the patient teaches me something teaches him something, and we have a relationship we can use to solve other problems. Like his annoying barking dog, so I don't have to put a fence up. Or shoot his dog.

+500 cross thread points.

[Citizen]

I can see the sense of that, and am aware of just the stance you speak of. Sometimes it is a strategic stance, other times it is a political one. But regardless of how we choose to see it (or state it), I question how much influence our talk will effect how the enemy does their business. It is the vision of Islamist extremism to maintain a dominant world theocracy. That could only be acheived by unity, even if it's Shiite overpowerring Sunni, or vice-versa.

The likelihood of a united Muslim front has dwindled exponentially since Ibn-e-Muljim was comissioned to kill Ali and ended the reign of the four rightly-guided Khalifas. This schism seeded what we today know to be the Sunnis and Shi'as- and from this point has continued to branch off (especially among Shi'a) to form a Christmas-tree shaped diagram of sects and subsects. These factions war among each other with, in some cases, greater dissent and disapproval even than Christians or Jews for their varied interpretations of what it means to be Muslim... or what is the proper interpretation of the Qua'ran, etc.

To put it another way, reunification of Islam under 1 Caliph is about as likely as a readaptation of Roman Catholicism as the correct interpretation of Christianity, recentralizing all Christian denominations therein and accepting Ratzinger as our heirarchical judge, jury and president.

[fish78]

The goal is curing the patient. Giving him a .45cal headache doesn't solve the problem (writing off Islam, such that the umma truly unites), because the patient can help you in other ways, some of them not so obvious. (see end of post)

I have no beef with the patient; I have an earnest desire to help others and so do other specialists; I am the patient's partner in curing him. I have to explain his options, recommend one and pursue it with his permission. I can't treat the patient if he has no desire to see me, doesn't believe the diagnosis, won't permit me to operate or worse stops treatment. I certainly don't want the patient to die; I'd lose my credibility as a doctor.

I espouse 'first do no harm' and speak of my desire to help people live 'cancer and pain free' (or without extremists causing problems, in a society with liberty).

In the end, curing the patient teaches me something teaches him something, and we have a relationship we can use to solve other problems. Like his annoying barking dog, so I don't have to put a fence up. Or shoot his dog.

+500 cross thread points.This is what I mean about examining whether that is the proper goal. Some years ago...someone, whose name my feeble mind won't let me rememer at the moment, wroye a rather extensive piece dealing with the idea that the next great struggle would be one og CULTURES...I think that piece mihjt vear some examination in light of what is happening now. Note there are profound differences between a war of cultures and a war of religions...so, I am not sure healing the patient is the goal...it might be, but then again, it might not.

[Greenhat]

Or, it could be that whoever wrote that piece you are trying to remember was completely and totally off the mark.

[fish78]

Always a possibility...But I have found it to be good policy to reexamine previously discarded material when circumstances change.

[HoosGhost]

This is what I mean about examining whether that is the proper goal. Some years ago...someone, whose name my feeble mind won't let me rememer at the moment, wroye a rather extensive piece dealing with the idea that the next great struggle would be one og CULTURES...I think that piece mihjt vear some examination in light of what is happening now. Note there are profound differences between a war of cultures and a war of religions...so, I am not sure healing the patient is the goal...it might be, but then again, it might not. So since we've put your 'Islamofascist' crap to bed, you're going to drag up scholarship you can't remember?

'Samuel Huntington' may be the name you're struggling for. The piece is 'Clash of Civilizations' and it was written back in 1993 for *gasp* The Council on Foreign Relations. He even teaches at Harvard. And it's arguments, while esoterically interesting, have not emerged for a lot of reasons (new thread topic). Simply put, he's been wrong too.
Clash of Civilizations (http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/misc/clash.html)

[fish78]

Hoos, there is no reason to be condescening, My point about fascism of the Islamic variety has little bearing on fascism being a 20th century construct,and it was not used by me, as you so arrogantly PRESUME, to inflame...there is no denial that the idea of a modern Caliphate shares many of the external characteristics of a fascist form of government...nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, it is the Huntington piece to which I refer...that it was written for the COFR is of little bearing to me, I am certain that he, like most humans, has been wrong before...What I am suggesting is to reexamine the document in light of recent events taking those parts which whave relevance an using it for our edification...

[smp52]

I can see the sense of that, and am aware of just the stance you speak of. Sometimes it is a strategic stance, other times it is a political one. But regardless of how we choose to see it (or state it), I question how much influence our talk will effect how the enemy does their business. It is the vision of Islamist extremism to maintain a dominant world theocracy. That could only be acheived by unity, even if it's Shiite overpowerring Sunni, or vice-versa.

Question: Regardless of the conclusion whether Islam, the religion, is to blame or not, how valuable is it for those fighting the salafist/extremist vision to say Islam isn't to blame from a tactical and strategic perspective?

Calling the spade a spade may be the truth, but it may not help our cause in winning, which is our ultimate goal. What is the value and how does it help our goals to call Islam itself the reason for terrorism/extremism?

[1799]

Question to Admin (sorry if it's been asked before): wonder how much traffic from "bad guy lands" are you seeing? If it's OK to ask.

[1799]

duplicate :eek:

[Paranutz]

Question to Admin (sorry if it's been asked before): wonder how much traffic from "bad guy lands" are you seeing? If it's OK to ask.
I'm not an Admin, but why would you care?

[DY]

Question: Regardless of the conclusion whether Islam, the religion, is to blame or not, how valuable is it for those fighting the salafist/extremist vision to say Islam isn't to blame from a tactical and strategic perspective? When the Commander in Chief declared war on terror, he explicitly stated it is not a war against Islam, and that Islam is a religion of peace. Ask a public figure who has been railroaded by the media and present Administration for stating otherwise.

As for the likelihood of the reuinification of Islam, it's apparent that I lack education on this topic. However, I do believe that many other factors effect the decision making process of religious leaders, including tribalism, and even the apearance of nationalism. It wouldn't surprise me to witness a state such as Iran dominate the majority of Islamic countries. Thus, regardless of one's sect or 'sub-sect, Shi'a interpretation of Sharia would be vastly influential. Or if Saudi Arabia were to manage to prop a caliph by first manipulating some sort of military dominance... I'm not stating that either is unequivivally possible. I AM stating that with the unstoppable trend of globablization, the distorted use of hadiths by characters like Bin Laden, and the agreed propensity of Islam to utilze force (even against other Muslims), that anything is possible because so much is not able to be predicted.

Protestant vice Catholicism is not exaclty the best example to cite for disunification. Neither is Judaism vice Christianity. Both have solid evidences of cooperation, in spite of vast theoligical differences.

[Paranutz]

1799 what is your back ground? What is Moscow like? Or are you there?

[1799]

Paranutz, there is a lot of interesting things a log file might reveal about "them" and their reading patterns. But then again, maybe this should not be public info.

[1799]

1799 what is your back ground? What is Moscow like? Or are you there?
Moscow is the best place on Earth. You should visit here if you have not yet. My background - Russian, Jewish, semi-Israeli civillian.

[Greenhat]

Question: Regardless of the conclusion whether Islam, the religion, is to blame or not, how valuable is it for those fighting the salafist/extremist vision to say Islam isn't to blame from a tactical and strategic perspective?

Calling the spade a spade may be the truth, but it may not help our cause in winning, which is our ultimate goal. What is the value and how does it help our goals to call Islam itself the reason for terrorism/extremism?

No value and it doesn't help. It hurts.

[Greenhat]

It wouldn't surprise me to witness a state such as Iran dominate the majority of Islamic countries.


It would surprise me greatly. Considering the majority of Islam does not reside in the middle-east, and Iran has no center of gravity for Islam (unlike Saudi Arabia with Mecca and Medina), I see no way for Iran to dominate the majority, or even more than a very small minority, of Islamic countries.

[Silverbullet]

If the entire SOCNET, with all its collective wisdom and resources, can not come up with a single quote by a single lunatic, then perhaps we should not be so sure?

The "entire" socnet has not posted in this thread so this statement is stupid.

Stay in your lane.

[RickyRecon]

World domination:

61:9 He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse.

9:33 He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse.

(Emphasis added)

When all religions have been conquered, the only religion will be Islam, and that would mean Sharia.

[DY]

It would surprise me greatly. Considering the majority of Islam does not reside in the middle-east, and Iran has no center of gravity for Islam (unlike Saudi Arabia with Mecca and Medina), I see no way for Iran to dominate the majority, or even more than a very small minority, of Islamic countries.
Here is a stretch. What about their vested interest in the demise of Israel? What about thier nuclear program? And are they not the premier state endorsing the Shi'a 'flavor'?

[Greenhat]

The "interest" in the demise of Israel does not extend throughout Islam (outside of the middle-east, most Muslims could care less, and even in the middle-east, not all Muslims are in agreement regarding Israel). As for their nuclear program, Pakistan already has nukes. They are a Islamic country. India already has nukes. They have the second largest Islamic population in the world. As for the Shi'a bit... can you show me where Rome has dominated Christianity since Martin Luther pinned his statements to a door?

[KidA]

World domination:

61:9 He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse.

9:33 He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse.

(Emphasis added)

When all religions have been conquered, the only religion will be Islam, and that would mean Sharia.

Yeah, that was in the bible first though.

[RickyRecon]

Yeah, that was in the bible first though.

The quotes were asked for, and they have been presented. I have said it before, and I will say it again. I am not a Christian and I could care less what is in the Bible. Everytime I hear "but what about the Christians?" I think of a kid getting in trouble and trying to pawn it off on his little brother.

But I will play your little game... when did Jesus Christ ever propose to spread Christianity by the sword, in words OR deeds? Thought not. When did Jesus Christ ever propose that Christianity should be a political concept? Thought not.

So much for your apologist argument.

[4-8-8-4]

The quotes were asked for, and they have been presented. I have said it before, and I will say it again. I am not a Christian and I could care less what is in the Bible. Everytime I hear "but what about the Christians?" I think of a kid getting in trouble and trying to pawn it off on his little brother.

But I will play your little game... when did Jesus Christ ever propose to spread Christianity by the sword, in words OR deeds? Thought not. When did Jesus Christ ever propose that Christianity should be a political concept? Thought not.

So much for your apologist argument.

"But those mine enemies, which want not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." - Jesus (Luke 19:26-28)

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Jesus (Matthew 10:34)

"If you don't have a cloak, sell your sword and buy one." - Jesus (Luke 22:36-38)

On a side note, the word "sword" doesn't appear in the Qur'an, while it appears in the bible over four hundred times.

[Greenhat]

The quotes were asked for, and they have been presented. I have said it before, and I will say it again. I am not a Christian and I could care less what is in the Bible. Everytime I hear "but what about the Christians?" I think of a kid getting in trouble and trying to pawn it off on his little brother.

But I will play your little game... when did Jesus Christ ever propose to spread Christianity by the sword, in words OR deeds? Thought not. When did Jesus Christ ever propose that Christianity should be a political concept? Thought not.

So much for your apologist argument.


Read the Apostles of Timothy. You might not be so quick with your "Thought not".

[Greenhat]

"But those mine enemies, which want not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." - Jesus (Luke 19:26-28)

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Jesus (Matthew 10:34)

"If you don't have a cloak, sell your sword and buy one." - Jesus (Luke 22:36-38)

On a side note, the word "sword" doesn't appear in the Qur'an, while it appears in the bible over four hundred times.


Don't interfere with people's prejudices by presenting facts... :D

[1799]

The quotes were asked for, and they have been presented.

Actually, the quote that was asked for was from a contemporary Muslim urging for world domination at the edge of a sword.

[stratiotes]

4-8-8-4,
Actually, those verses are out of context. The first is part of a parable and is not Jesus literally saying to slay his opponents. The second is not refering to a literal sword, but the dividing effect his words will have on people. And finally, the third is a misquote. The actual verse is, "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." Then, one page later when Peter takes a swing at a soldier with it, Jesus stops him and heals the wound. And tells everyone he is not leading a rebellion, and the soldiers' weapons are unnecessary.

[T-Rock]

"But those mine enemies, which want not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." - Jesus (Luke 19:26-28)


Dang, How can that be so easily mis-interpreted when looked at in its full context? I don't see this as a proposition or where it commands Christians to spread Christianity by the sword? Sounds to me like it's a parable xplaining what's going to happen during the judgement?

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Jesus (Matthew 10:34)


Christians hold that Jesus is using the word "sword" as a metaphor to describe the division that his message would bring between those who accept it and those who reject it. They note that in the context of the passage, Jesus was warning his disciples that they would encounter violence from those who rejected their message, and that those who reject it would also suffer at the hands of God, as, "It will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah than for them." In other words, it was a warning about the persecution of Christians.

They conclude that this division between righteous and unrighteous is the "sword" which Jesus brought. And as a result of this division:

"Brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death," indicating that the message would divide families between those who accepted the message and those who rejected it.
Rather than advocating violence, Jesus was warning his disciples that they would encounter violence from those unwilling to accept the Truth. Nowhere in the passage does he instruct them to harm anyone. On the contrary, he instructs them to heal the sick, raise the dead, and cast out demons, and explicitly tells them to be "as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves." These are all instructions consistent with his message of love and grace. He does not command them to resort to violence with those who reject the message. On the contrary, he tells them to leave the homes of those who reject them, because God alone will be the judge of those who reject the Truth.

This interpretation that the Truth will cause division between those who accept it and those who reject it is also reflected in John 1:10-13 (RSV), which reports of Jesus:

"He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not. He came to his own home, and his own people received him not. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God."


I thought this thread was about Islamic Fascism :D

[RickyRecon]

Read the Apostles of Timothy. You might not be so quick with your "Thought not".

Fair enough. I have been rebuked.

In my defense, however, Mohammad and Jesus led completely different lives. Their words must be taken into context WITH their actions. Additionaly, the bible is OPEN to interpretation, it is actually encouraged, while the Koran is absolutely NOT open to interpretation.

I thought this thread was about Islamic Fascism

It is, but apologists can not help but attempt to use "Christianity" as a defense when confronted with the violent doctrines of Islam, radical or not.

[KidA]

The quotes were asked for, and they have been presented. I have said it before, and I will say it again. I am not a Christian and I could care less what is in the Bible. Everytime I hear "but what about the Christians?" I think of a kid getting in trouble and trying to pawn it off on his little brother.

But I will play your little game... when did Jesus Christ ever propose to spread Christianity by the sword, in words OR deeds? Thought not. When did Jesus Christ ever propose that Christianity should be a political concept? Thought not.

So much for your apologist argument.

Jesus never proposed to spread Christianity at all. Jesus was Jewish. Paul changed Jesus' message into the message currently defined as "Christianity."

[RickyRecon]

Well.... yea. You think? ;) I was making an attempt at simplicity. Obviously it was not called "Christianity" at all in that time, but a new form of Judaism.

[3dRanger]

Here is my final comment on this subject. I will refer to their actions not their words. I'll preface this by stating that I am a Christian. There are millions, yes millions of people on this earth, that would kill me if they had the chance just because of that statement. Try walking down a street in many of the predominately Muslim countries with a cross around your neck and a Bible in your hand and see how well you do. Christians are not blowing themselves up in market squares. They are not sawing off the heads of the innocent. They are not flying planes into buildings. You can talk all the bullshit you want about how a peaceful religion Islam is, but I don't see it. If there are millions of "peaceful" muslims out there denouncing radical Islam I very rarely hear it. Don't blame it on the media. That is horseshit. If they were vocal about it we would hear it. Throw out all the quotes in the bible and Quran that you want. Whoopty frickin doo. Bottom line, it is the 21st century and muslims are the ones that are terrorists. I'm so tired of people defending radical muslims to what "Christians" did 800 years ago and pulling random quotes out of the Bible. Wake the fuck up and look around you.

I'm done venting and that is my last post in this thread. Have a great frickin day!

[Silverbullet]

Jesus never proposed to spread Christianity at all. Jesus was Jewish. Paul changed Jesus' message into the message currently defined as "Christianity."

You're wrong. Yes, Christ was a Jew. Christ also directed the spread of His Word to the Gentiles. Christ never stated anyone should bcome a "Christian" or used "religion" as something someone should strive for.

Don't reply with this in a quote. Just drop the subj or head over to a Bible teaching site and debate the words.

None of this helps the thread. So how about staying on msg vice spreading incorrect info?:D

This is how threads end up getting shut down and then deleted.

If everyone has run out of things to discuss about the Islamic threat just don't post. I know for some of you who have never really had any exposure to Islam, it gets tiresome to keep frantically searching the internet for information to support your points:D (that's directed at a number of you)

[Greenhat]

The actual verse is, "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

The actual verse was in English?

[Greenhat]

You're wrong. Yes, Christ was a Jew. Christ also directed the spread of His Word to the Gentiles. Christ never stated anyone should bcome a "Christian" or used "religion" as something someone should strive for.

Maybe. Maybe not. A matter of faith. What Christ taught we can't be so sure of. The books currently in the Bible are not the only books that were written by followers of Christ, and Christ himself wrote no books at all. Neither are any of the books that may have been written by his apostles included in the Bible.

Now, I don't say this to start an argument. Religion, of any sort, is a matter of faith, not facts. That is true of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, whatever...

And in every case, the writings that are considered part of that religion can and have been intepreted in different ways.

[Silverbullet]

Maybe. Maybe not..

No maybe's about it. Good luck.

[1799]

I posted again because I cant STFU.

[Silverbullet]

Not to disprove anything, but this is a worthwile reading IMHO:



You need to read my comments about someone who doesn't have any first hand expereince with Islam......

You're prime expample of that person.

KidA has earned the right to be the dissenter. He's got the spur marks to prove it. You haven't. Tone down your know it all attitude and remember you are a guest here.

I noticed earlier in this thread you felt you had the right to admonish a member with a SF background. You don't. Don't do it again.

[Greenhat]

If there are millions of "peaceful" muslims out there denouncing radical Islam I very rarely hear it. Don't blame it on the media. That is horseshit. If they were vocal about it we would hear it.


Fundamentally untrue. The current President of Indonesia ran on an anti-terrorism platform and has condemned terrorism multiple times. And as far as I've been able to discover, the American media has reported exactly one of those speeches, and that in a quick blurb found on back pages in a few newspapers. And that was statements by the President of the most populous Islamic nation in the world. Effectively, no coverage.

Why? I'd like to know. I really would.

I live in a part of the world where more Muslims live than live in the middle-east. A part of the world where I have personally heard a great number of Muslims denounce terrorism, where a great many have lost family members to terrorism and don't support it. There has been a great deal of outrage and denouncement of terrorism in this part of the world, and the active participation of the governments of Islam nations in the fight on terrorism. Is that representative of all of Islam? Or even all Muslims in this part of the world? Of course not. And neither are the extremists.

I've also spent time in the Middle-East, and have dealt with both Israelis and Egyptians during my time there. I can't say that I found that I understood either group culturally all that well, but as people, I found them no worse than any other people.

Finally, I've dealt with an awful lot of Turks, and people from various 'Stans. Again, I haven't run into any particular one-mindedness or drive to kill infidels. Just people, pretty much like any others with the same cultural blindness and stubborness that is illustrated by most people.

There are millions of Muslims fighting on the side of the United States and our allies in the GWOT. Nations such as Jordan, Turkey, Morocco, Indonesia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and Malaysia.

A few months ago, General Peter Schoomaker took part in a military conference in Bangkok, Thailand. The focus of the conference was fighting terrorism. The participants included the senior military leaders of Thailand, the US, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, Indonesia, China, Malaysia, Brunei, and Singapore. Note that some of those nations are Muslim nations. They are also allies. One of those leaders was General Santhi of the Royal Thai Army. A Special Forces General and former Commander of the Thai Special Warfare Center. He's also a Muslim.

The war isn't with Islam. And everytime that someone claims it is, they hurt the war effort. They mis-identify the enemy and waste energy and confuse the issues.

Yes, the Islam religion is being manipulated by the enemy. But that does not make Islam the enemy. Anymore than the IRA's manipulation of religion made Catholicism the enemy or the UDF's manipulation of religion made Protestentism the enemy. Nor are the claims of terrorists of what their goals are to be taken at face value. Because any study of terrorism will discover that most terrorists will change their goals in order to allow them to continue to exercise power through terror.

[Greenhat]

Fair enough. I have been rebuked.

In my defense, however, Mohammad and Jesus led completely different lives. Their words must be taken into context WITH their actions. Additionaly, the bible is OPEN to interpretation, it is actually encouraged, while the Koran is absolutely NOT open to interpretation.


Gandhi and Washington led completely different lives. Does that mean that one was better as a leader?

Additionally, to a large part of the Islamic world (the majority in all liklihood), the Qu'ron is subject to interpretation. As I have pointed out numerous times, the middle-east is a minority of Islam. And even in the middle-east, there is a great deal of variation in how Islam is practiced.

[stratiotes]

Good point, Greenhat. This war has as much to do with Islam as the Crusades had to do with Christianity. It's just smoke and mirrors. Innocent people are being killed in Baghdad because someone wants to be in absolute power, and can't stand the idea of the general populace making decisions. Same thing happens worldwide today and all through history under different banners.

[KidA]

The war isn't with Islam. And everytime that someone claims it is, they hurt the war effort. They mis-identify the enemy and waste energy and confuse the issues..

Edited down, but the entire post was excellent.

If Christianity had taken hold in these mid-east countries 100 years ago, but they still suffered from petty squabbles, or an Fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity, and had yet to culturally advance we'd still be fighting with them. Being 'Christian' doesn't guarantee advancement (they advanced very well under Islam a few hundred years ago) - it is more tied to the culture than to any religion - Christian murderers in Africa are proof of that.

[fish78]

Folks, Hanson's piece did not state nor imply that the entire religion of Islam was Fascist, nor was the term used to infame. He used it to describe that faction within Islam that has declared war on the west and the Caliphate that they propose. I don't think that anyone has said that the mechanicics of such a Caliphate are worked out, it is the concept that Hanson identifies as a threat. You may disagree for any number of reasons, but please do not attempt to turn this into some pissing contest between Christianity and Islam...it is certain that it is not that.

[Silverbullet]

I'd submit that meeting followers of Islam in business settings where they are there to make a buck or sharing tea/coffee with them does not really give anyone the true look behind the curtain.

Stating that there are many more Muslims assisting us than fighting us is correct on a very superficial level but incorrect in reality. Since Pakistan was thrown out as evidence of this I'll use them

First how many who have posted here have ever walked the streets of any city there? I'm not talking about flying into the capital for some meetings and go from hotel to meeting area and to a few selcted places your host suggested.

Pak is on our "side". Our side meaning they don't want to get destroyed in our quest to destroy AQ. They aren't a proactive ally actually pursuing AQ or assisting us in destroying their center of gravity. In many cases they are actively hindering us. Of course someone will throw out geo poliitcs. Sure it is but it doesn't change the fact that they are not "allies" in the true sense of the word. They'd turn on us in a minute if it meant pissing the Islam world off beyond what they are now. Some of that is occuring right now as they have publically acknowledged..

What many fail to see is that we are in a fight with Islam. Hijacked faction or not. The common thread is that they are followers of Islam or claim to be followers. The sad fact is that the majority of Islam followers will turn a blind eye to what the "hijacked faction" is doing since their loyalty is to Islam first and what is right second. Until those that some of you want to hold up as our allies or call moderate stand up to the "Islam hijackers" we'll remain in a fight with it. I know a few of you will find some article or something on the net to bolster your claim that there is in fact some that have stood up. Yes there are, but in the marco picture it's a drop in the bucket since the % is so small, compared to the complete number of Islam followers, it is not even acknowledged by the bulk of Islam followers.

Now I'm sure someone will misrepresent my statements as being anti Arab or anti Muslim, but you'll be wrong.

[KidA]

Now I'm sure someone will misrepresent my statements as being anti Arab or anti Muslim, but you'll be wrong.


SB - do you think (as I proposed earlier) that IF Christianity had taken hold in the Mid-E say, 100-200 years ago as the dominant religion in the area that we'd still be having the problems we do today?

I agree with your assessment that it is Islam due to its varying interpretations and ability to be interpreted very severely, but in the same vein Christianity can be interpreted very severely (GodHatesFags). Because of that I believe that it is more of a cultural thing that goes back thousands of years, long before Islam took a foothold.

Off the mark or getting closer?

[HoosGhost]

Folks, Hanson's piece did not state nor imply that the entire religion of Islam was Fascist, nor was the term used to infame. He used it to describe that faction within Islam that has declared war on the west and the Caliphate that they propose. I don't think that anyone has said that the mechanicics of such a Caliphate are worked out, it is the concept that Hanson identifies as a threat. So now you're backing away from your tacit endorsement of the term?

Hanson and others use the term because they fail to examine any other frame of historical reference other than history of the past 100 years. So many marry up one of the most inflammatory labels in their brains to a problem that predates their historical reference by hundreds of years. It demonstrates, at a minimum, exceptional ignorance.

ANALOGY: The amalgamation (double word score) of the terms 'Islam' and 'Fascism' condemns *all* Muslims. It would be simliar to equating all Baptists as members of the Westboro Baptist Church (asshat protesters at military funerals). Inflamatory? Youbetcha.

[fish78]

No, I am NOT backing away at all...read my posts...there is a strong resemblemce between a proposed MODERN Caliphate and a Fascist regime. What about that is unclear...That Islam predates Fascism is not relevant, that there is no nation state is also not relevant...that others have misused the term Fascist to indicate any form of right wing totalitarin government is also not relevant...

[Greenhat]

The sad fact is that the majority of Islam followers will turn a blind eye to what the "hijacked faction" is doing since their loyalty is to Islam first and what is right second.


You mean like General Sonthi, or President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono?

The largest region of Islam's followers live in South Asia (28%)... one country alone, Indonesia, has about 15% of all Muslims living in it. Another 12% live in India. You may be right about Pakistan... but that doesn't change the fact that Pakistani Soldiers are risking their lives and giving their lives fighting on our side in this war. So are Moroccans, Kuwaitis, Jordanians, Indonesians, Malaysians, Afghanis, Kurds (many of whom are Muslims), Iraqis, etc.

And what "right" do you choose to use? Your moral code? Does that mean that you believe you have the right to dictate what others should do and how they should act?

[CejoP]

Folks, Hanson's piece did not state nor imply that the entire religion of Islam was Fascist, nor was the term used to infame. He used it to describe that faction within Islam that has declared war on the west and the Caliphate that they propose...

Hanson could have called them Mujahiddin if he was just trying to be descriptive. But that wasn't the point of his article. He was specifically defending use of the term "Islamic Fascist," and that's all he was doing.

[Baildog]

This whole thread is a microcosm of the fact that we have a serious problem in that we remain unable to adequately and accurately define who or what it is that we are fighting against. And that is not just semantics, it really is fundamental problem. And lacking a clear conceptualization of the mission, we cannot form a coherent strategy, agree on a desired endstate, articulate what our goals are, or garner and maintain support from our own populace or from anyone else.

It's easier when the enemy is a nation-state or a political ideology (especially when they have already clearly articulated that you are their enemy) or even if it were an entire religion. Being at war with Nazi Germany, or with "Communists," for example, is easy to understand and articulate. It also makes it easier to accomplish the requisite demonization and dehumanization of the enemy that is required to get your warriors and in particular your populace into the necessary mindset to sustain a war.

But even now we still don't have the words to explain to ourselves --- let alone anyone else. Which is why we continue to argue the point while thrashing around looking for an easy catch-all label to lump them under.

Because "Terrorists" didn't do the trick. Terrorism is a tactic, perhaps arguably even a strategy, but it is in no way, shape or form an ideology. To paraphrase a brilliant quote someone has/had in their sig line, "This is as much a war on terrorism as WWII was a war on submarines."

So along comes "Islamofascist."

Which is catchy, sure. Fascism has nasty connotations, and it parallels (in a very rough way) some of their ideology. But it really just shows that we still don't have a proper sight picture on the enemy.

[HoosGhost]

No, I am NOT backing away at all...read my posts...there is a strong resemblemce between a proposed MODERN Caliphate and a Fascist regime. What about that is unclear... The part where you came up with some sort of relevant, cogent argument to support your assertion. Failing that, show some sort of serious scholarship (DEBKA-esque citations excluded) supporting this thesis.

[fish78]

Well, this come from my mind, you may consider it cogent or not, The underlyinf principle of fascism is the complete subjugation of the individual to smething greater(usually the state) and total loyal to a leader. The individual has no right except those that advance the greater thing(state) . In the case of a modern Caliphate the greater thing is Sharia, the leader is the Caliph...the subugation to Sharia is complete and the individual has no rights except as specified by Sharia and loyaty to the Caliph is demanded. That is how the two are strikingly similar. Islam is important because those pushing for such a Caliphate are using Saharia as the excuse to imopse this tyranny. Tthis shoud be read not as an attempt to incite or inflame but as an expose' of those attempting to destry one of thwr Worlds major religions.

As I said, you may or may not find this cogent, but this is my argument and I think what Hanson was driving at.

[Greenhat]

The underlyinf principle of fascism is the complete subjugation of the individual to smething greater(usually the state) and total loyal to a leader.

Explain the difference between Leninist or Stalinist Communism and Fascism as you have defined it, please.

[fish78]

The difference is that under either of the communist systems, they relied on their version of democracy, under fascism or this modern caliphate, democracy is not considered. In fact, in the Communist Manifesto, you will find the word democracy used liberally. It does not resemble the western version of democracy, but as stated under either Fascism or the modern Caliphate it is not even a consideration.

[Silverbullet]

You may be right about Pakistan... but that doesn't change the fact that Pakistani Soldiers are risking their lives and giving their lives fighting on our side in this war. So are Moroccans, Kuwaitis, Jordanians, Indonesians, Malaysians, Afghanis, Kurds (many of whom are Muslims), Iraqis, etc.

And what "right" do you choose to use? Your moral code? Does that mean that you believe you have the right to dictate what others should do and how they should act?

Don't twist my words. Doing whats right is simple as not chopping heads off innocent peole or flying planes into buildings full of people who didn't do a thing to you. Things like that. I don't think I was the ground breaker on that concept.

Show me one instance where Pakistan soldiers have risked their lives fighting on our side?

Those that worked there or have worked the Afghan border region can attest to the feelings of Pakistani's and it isn't what is being endorsed here. The average Pak soldier will draw down faster on a US Soldier than they will AQ.

We also had to liberate Iraq and Afghan to get them to be on "our side". Using them is a throw away since we can't be sure how they'll act once we're gone.

Many Kurds are Muslim! Who would have thought? Guess me livng and working among them would never have indicated that to me. Unlike the countries you seem to think are GTG the Kurds won't tolerate hijacking of any faith as a jutification for commiting murder.

Moracco? LOL C'mom.....

Nothing I wrote should be viewed as an indictment of Arabs or Muslims. I'm sure this will be ignored again, but I thought I'd write it anyway:D

[Silverbullet]

SB - do you think (as I proposed earlier) that IF Christianity had taken hold in the Mid-E say, 100-200 years ago as the dominant religion in the area that we'd still be having the problems we do today?

I agree with your assessment that it is Islam due to its varying interpretations and ability to be interpreted very severely, but in the same vein Christianity can be interpreted very severely (GodHatesFags). Because of that I believe that it is more of a cultural thing that goes back thousands of years, long before Islam took a foothold.

Off the mark or getting closer?

I don't know the answer to your first question. Many people use Christianity to excuse murder and hate. Christianity has many problems due to the legalistic additions to the Word that certain sects have put on top of it.

As I stated I believe we are fighting Islam. Not all of this fighting is via bullets or missles. Some of it is hearts and minds, some of it is ideals, some of it is just making other followers of Islam see that they need to speak up and denounce those commiting barbaric acts in Islams name. That's the fight we're in. It's multi pronged fight not the simplistic fight that some here seem to think we need to conduct, ie.."destroy them all" or those that feel the oppisite. They're both wrong.

[Greenhat]

Show me one instance where Pakistan soldiers have risked their lives fighting on our side?

Somalia. October 3-4, 1993.


Moracco? LOL C'mom.....

Still involved and risking troops. Regardless of your laughs.

Nothing I wrote should be viewed as an indictment of Arabs or Muslims. I'm sure this will be ignored again, but I thought I'd write it anyway:D

Despite your continual claims that we are war with Islam, right?

[Greenhat]

The difference is that under either of the communist systems, they relied on their version of democracy, under fascism or this modern caliphate, democracy is not considered. In fact, in the Communist Manifesto, you will find the word democracy used liberally. It does not resemble the western version of democracy, but as stated under either Fascism or the modern Caliphate it is not even a consideration.


Just because the Communist Manifesto says something doesn't make it fact. I chose Stalinist and Leninist versions of Communism for a reason. The reality is that both would seem to be Fascist as you described it... they existed when Fascism was at its height and yet were not called Fascism by anyone that I know of. I'd suggest your definition is flawed.

[Sigi]

Just because the Communist Manifesto says something doesn't make it fact. I chose Stalinist and Leninist versions of Communism for a reason. The reality is that both would seem to be Fascist as you described it... they existed when Fascism was at its height and yet were not called Fascism by anyone that I know of. I'd suggest your definition is flawed.
Totalitariansim v. Facism.

Communism was about class warfare, and fascism was about nationalistic identity. The communists wanted to form a global revolution based on class struggle, while fascism subordinated the individual to the corporate state and opposed class struggle.

So I guess Islamofascists is a bad term. I have been guilty of using it because I thought it was accurate. I was wrong.

Good thread and I am learning a lot.

[fish78]

Both made much to do over the "people's" this or the other...their idea of democracy...that they were totalitarian doesn't make them Fascist, in fact both promised the eventual withereing away of the state...something that fascism would never do, neither would a modern Caliphate promise the eventual disolution of the Caliphate.

[Silverbullet]

Somalia. October 3-4, 1993.

1993? Good stretch. Has nothing to do with this discussion. Doesn't support your points in the least. Maybe I'll use the Balkans to show how we waged war to support the Muslims. See how easy that works when you decide to change the parameters of the discussion?

Still involved and risking troops.

Moracco isn't doing a thing to assist us.


Despite your continual claims that we are war with Islam, right?

Reading comprehension 101- Never said we were at war with Islam. Stated we were fighting Islam and spelled out exactly what I meant. Another attempt to twist my words by putting words in my month. Niether works.

I recognize those who posted on this thread who have first hand experience with the subj. I'm sure they recognize the same thing when they read it as well.

I'm going to bed, have fun with this thread.

[Sigi]

Both made much to do over the "people's" this or the other...their idea of democracy...that they were totalitarian doesn't make them Fascist, in fact both promised the eventual withereing away of the state...something that fascism would never do, neither would a modern Caliphate promise the eventual disolution of the Caliphate.
But the point is Fascism had zero to do with religion, and everything to do with the subjugation to the state. The Caliphate is based entirely on subjugation to religion.

Two different entities. Can't there be a new definition? Does it have to be Islamofascist? Why does it have to be Islamofascist? It is a buzzword.

[Greenhat]

Totalitariansim v. Facism.

Communism was about class warfare, and fascism was about nationalistic identity. The communists wanted to form a global revolution based on class struggle, while fascism subordinated the individual to the corporate state and opposed class struggle.



Stalin spoke about Mother Russia and defending Mother Russia an awful lot during WWII. Class warfare? The reality was that the ruling classes in the Soviet Union lived in Dachas and had cars and drivers, caviar, etc... while the peasents continued to man the Army and fight for their homeland, not for worldwide Communism.

[fish78]

To my mind as I have tried to explain a dozen times the proposed modern Caliphate is MOST like the idea of fascism than anything else...instead of subugation to a state, the individual is sbugated to Sharia so Islam is pertinent...there is NO recognition if individual rights only those rights that advance the cause...a completely fascist idea...the demonozation of those not of the "chosen"...the similarities are too striking to ignore...all of you who declare it a mere buzzword are giving this argument serious short shrift.

[KidA]

Stalin spoke about Mother Russia and defending Mother Russia an awful lot during WWII. Class warfare? The reality was that the ruling classes in the Soviet Union lived in Dachas and had cars and drivers, caviar, etc... while the peasents continued to man the Army and fight for their homeland, not for worldwide Communism.

Ding-Ding. However Stalin and Lenin started out and whatever kind of true belief they may have had in a "workers state" they were soon corrupted by power - much like the discussion about OBL being corrupted by power and not a "true believer" (any longer).

Their hangers on and party members were smart enough to line up with the next party taking control...and unfortunately it was the ignorant worker bee in Soviet Russia that suffered.