Islamic Fascism

[Jae Onasi]

Ahh, I see. So the christian militas slaughtering whole villages are just defending themselves.. but the islamic militias are an example of the violent, intollerant nature of islam. Hmm.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3689615.stm

That explains the poor KKK as well, always having to defend themselves, poor guys...

 

Sorry--I didn't mean to imply that Christians are 100% innocent. Both sides have had their moments, and it takes 2 to tango.

 

 

 

Which i guess is only to be expected as they are basically the same religion (muslims following the teachings of christ and all that..) .

 

There are a lot of similarities. There are some important differences. But that's another thread entirely.

 

There are millions of muslims living quite peaceful and happy lives in constitutional monarchies and secular republics around the world.. but the only ones we ever see on tv are the violent extremists attacking us.

That's because violence/war is far more fascinating news than watching people go about their daily lives, and people want to see interesting news, even though I get sick of seeing it. If we were getting attacked by Lithuania or Monaco, that would make the news, too.

And when 'Christians' do something idiotic like bomb abortion clinics, that makes the news, too.

 

 

Islam is no more fundamentally violent, or evil, or fascistic than christianity. It simply happens that at this moment in history we are constantly bombarded by images of our enemy.. who happens to be a fascistic islamic state.

 

I don't disagree.

Most reasonable Christians are horrified when violence is committed in the name of Christianity, and while I can't speak for Muslims since I'm not one, I would assume that most reasonable Muslims are just as horrified by violence committed in the name of Islam.

[Nancy Allen``]

I don't understand why people want to make if difficult when the race or religion card is played. To me it's irrevelent, regardless of where you're from or what you believe, anyone who plans to carry out a terrorist or criminal act should be buried. So you disagree with abortion, you disagree with globalisation. Guess what? I disagree with conquering land in the name of God. That does not give me the right to burn Bibles or attack Christians anymore than anyone else has the right to violently impose their views on others.

[toms]

I think this was the christian milita i was mostly thinking of.. but i only remembered what they were called tonight after seeing a news article.

 

The Lord's Resistance Army

Aparently aiming to set up a state based onthe Ten Commandments.. and having been the main cause of one of africa's longest running and most bloody conflicts. With christian acts including: mutilation, torture, rape, the abduction of civilians, the abduction an estimated 20,000 children, the use of child soldiers and a number of massacres.

 

Yes yes, i know the guy leading them is a nutter and "not a real christian".. but he's an equivilent to Bin Laden and all of the "not a real muslim" "islamo-fascist" terrorist leaders in islam.

[Kurgan]

While the original poster obviously wanted to push some buttons, is the best argument here really that since there are bad Christians out there, we can't point out the shortcoming of Muslims?

[toms]

No. Its that "islamic fascism" doesn't exist... no more than any other religion can be called fascist at least. Its a term made up to demonise "the enemy" so people have less qualms about killing them.

[Nancy Allen``]

I look at September 11 and those responsible and think 'they hijacked planes, used them to destroy the Trade Centre and tried to destroy the Pentagon and whichever target they had in mind for Flight 93, they killed thousands of innocent people, have declared war on the world, have followed up with further attacks in Indonesia, Egypt, Spain, England...wait, they're Islamic? Nup, I never noticed, I was too busy thinking of their actions rather than their religion.'

[toms]

I just wish a few of those in charge were more like you then.. rather than using that attack as a reason to "spread democracy" and "regime change" all those darn "islamo-fascist" states.

[Nancy Allen``]

Iraq was certainly a mistake in terms of what it had done to America and the world. For Afghanistan however it was, for one, retalliation for September 11, for another it was a legitimate mission to take control of the country from the Taliban and give it to the Afghanis. To be fair Iraq, as well as other countries such as Saudi Arabia and North Korea need a regime change, but in terms of actually taking action it has to be a much better reason than 'weapons of mass destruction.' Besides which there are much better ways to stop a facist country than all out war.

[Jae Onasi]

I just wish a few of those in charge were more like you then.. rather than using that attack as a reason to "spread democracy" and "regime change" all those darn "islamo-fascist" states.

 

I think the term might have been coined to differentiate it from peaceful Islam.

 

I don't care if they have green skin, wear pink polka-dot hair bands and orange-and-purple plaid and believe in the philosophy of Raniskran. If they attack and kill innocent people to make some kind of idiotic political statement, they need to be stopped. If they all believed in the philosophy of Raniskran as a reason to kill innocents, then I suppose we'd call it Raniskran-o-fascism.

[toms]

Iraq was certainly a mistake in terms of what it had done to America and the world. For Afghanistan however it was, for one, retalliation for September 11, for another it was a legitimate mission to take control of the country from the Taliban and give it to the Afghanis. To be fair Iraq, as well as other countries such as Saudi Arabia and North Korea need a regime change, but in terms of actually taking action it has to be a much better reason than 'weapons of mass destruction.' Besides which there are much better ways to stop a facist country than all out war.

 

Afganisan wasn't much more of a legitimate mission than iraq. The Taliban WERE the afganis.. and they had at least a reasonable ammount of support there. Otherwise they wouldn't have been in control.

The only excuse for targetting the taliban (other than the fact america needed take its frustrations out on SOMEONE) was that they allowed Al Quaida to operate within their borders. They weren't affilitated with al quaida. They didn't support al quaida. they didn't even agree with al quaida on a lot of things. They just tolerated them.

 

Maybe thats enough.

 

But it seems like they tollerated them mostly because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". And that we attacked them because they were "friends of our enemy". We probably should have just attacked our enemy themselves.

 

(As the CIA has supported numerous coup attempts around the world - including the assasination of a democratically elected prime minister in the Congo that lead to "Africa's World War" and 3.8million deaths - that implies to me that, using the same standards of "guilt by association" that the US uses itself, the USA is about due for a regime change. )

[Nancy Allen``]

Every four to eight years as a matter of fact. We've gone fron Regan to Bush Snr to Clinton to Bush. At this stage Rice is a likely next President.

 

With Afghanistan, yup, the Taliban were used by the CIA to combat against the Soviets, then they decided to become a terrorist organisation. Don't forget that they are not just trying to destroy America, they want to bring down everything that is not militent Islam. Their attacks on east and west is evidence enough and they confirmed it last month. Had Bush stopped with Afghanistan I don't think people would have nearly the amount of issues they have now. After all, who would want to ally themselves with Bin Laden?

[Good Sir Knight]

Its just that our nations no longer let the religious extremists define the laws.

 

I'm told that Pat Robertson actually lets his wife drive an automobile and speak with men outside her family.

 

 

Why must we bring up Christianity when someone criticizes Islam?

 

I love it how there is this knee jerk reaction on the left that naively marry's the two religions together.

 

I can't wait to hear about the IRA, an organization that pales in comparison to the global jihad. Islam killed more people in two hours (9/11) than the IRA has killed in the last 30-40 years. It was funny of someone to bring up Indian Christians, tell me... does that compare to the Islamic Jihad in size and scope?

 

Are there more Muslims blowing up innocents in the name of Islam or more Christians blowing up innocents in the name of Christianity?

 

Could this be because of their cult like religion? One simply has to wonder. I hope your inability to criticize Islam isn't rooted in your fear of 'radicalizing Muslims'.... the stick the British Muslim community brings up when they drop the carrot.

 

The key is in the name. The United States didn't bomb Iraq in the name of Christ nor did Hitler murder 3 million Polish Christians in the name of Christ. Please, find me at least 10 terrorist attacks in the last 10 years that were done in the name of Christ and I can point you to a mere hundred perpetrated in the name of Muhammed. It would be a tip of the ice berg.

 

Of course lefties denouncing my post as 'stupid' comes to no surprise.

 

We recently had former Iranian President Khatami visit Harvard, the Mecca of multiculturalism. When he was asked about the persecution of homosexuals he defended it by stating that homosexuality was a crime.

 

There were no walk outs.

 

There were no boos.

 

There was no hissing.

 

....but there were applause at the end.

 

 

 

Now imagine if an American Christian was there stating that homosexuality was a mere sin. Imagine the reaction to that.

 

 

 

Below is a picture of two homosexual men, two of many that have been hung for loving another man in Iran.

 

 

 

[TK-8252]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army

 

"The LRA have been accused of widespread human rights violations, including mutilation, torture, rape, the abduction of civilians, the use of child soldiers and a number of massacres."

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/lra.htm

 

"The LRA rebels say they are fighting for the establishment of a government based on the biblical Ten Commandments. They are notorious for kidnapping children and forcing them to become rebel fighters or concubines. More than one-half-million people in Uganda's Gulu and Kitgum districts have been displaced by the fighting and are living in temporary camps, protected by the army."

 

I am in no way defending radical Muslims in this post. I am, however, saying that radical Christianity is hardly much better when you look at what the good god-fearing Christians are doing in say, Africa.

[Good Sir Knight]

This is a thread concerning Islam and the definition of what the Bush administration calls, "Islamic Fascism."

 

I know many people here love criticizing Christianity and it's adherents. There are plenty of places to do that and I'd welcome a thread on Christian faults/oppression so long as we could stick to the topic here.

 

The pope is a wanted man by the way, he was rude I guess.

[Nancy Allen``]

Okay. Islam is used as a shield by Middle Eastern terrorists to legitimise their acts of mass murder. IRA tangos are equally guilty of doing this, except they hide behind Christiananity, not Islam. There is nothing wrong with the religion that cannot be solved by dealing with those who abuse it.

[Good Sir Knight]

I am, however, saying that radical Christianity is hardly much better when you look at what the good god-fearing Christians are doing in say, Africa.

 

How by chance does that pittling militia compare to what's going on in Sudan?

 

Islam is used as a shield by Middle Eastern terrorists to legitimise their acts of mass murder.

 

But is it? That ideology comes from somewhere and it does in fact come from the Koran. Which hasn't changed at all since the 17th century, during a time when Christianity was as bad or worse than Muslims.

 

 

IRA tangos are equally guilty of doing this, except they hide behind Christiananity, not Islam.

 

This would assert that terrorist groups kill for the simple love of killing. There is a distinction between religious extremists who kill people and serial killers like Ted Bundy.

 

One must look and read into the Koran to discover the many different interpretations, interestingly severe misogyny is pretty clear cut.

 

 

There is nothing wrong with the religion that cannot be solved by dealing with those who abuse it.

 

I disagree, as you can see Islamic terrorists are caught and prosecuted even in most Muslim countries. Your point would assert that by bombs, bullets and imprisonment....Islamic radicalism/oppression would go away.

 

Islam is more than a belief, it's a culture, it's a movement. It spreads, multiplies quickly and seeps into institutions and governments. It should mostly stay in the middle east IMO as it flourishes in Liberal democracy while eroding those liberal principles in the name of multi-culturalism.

 

Do you want sharia in your neighborhood?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4215182.stm

 

If you happen to be raped you'll need four witnesses or you will be charged with adultery and punished of course for disobeying 'almighty Allah'. Apparently he's 'oh so merciful'.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14698757/

[Tyrion]

But is it? That ideologey comes from somewhere and it does in fact come from the Koran. Which hasn't changed at all since the 17th century, during a time when Christianity was as bad or worse than Muslims.

 

Interestingly enough, in the 17th century Europe and the Middle East were largely at equal economical strength. In the 20th century, the Christian West blossomed into a industrial and cultural superpower; the Middle East not so much. Coincidentily, there are far more political and religious freedoms in the West and less so in the East. Therefore, I would imagine that most of the strife resulting from Africa and the Middle East are due not to Islam, but instead to the relative hellhole they live in as a result of poor luck. Islam is merely an escape for them, like Christianity was in the 17th century and before.

[Nancy Allen``]

The word of the Koran is twisted around, warped, and taken in the utmost litrial sense with no thought in what is sensationalism in order to make it look as if their God is commanding their actions. I don't have a Islamic example to give you so I will give a Christian one: The Bible says to cut off the arm that sins, gouge out the eye that sins. Not one church or Christian I know of puts this into practice, as it is quite obvious this is using a laser to open a beer can.

 

It's true that some terrorists kill for the love of killing. However, most of them do so for reasons other than firm religious beliefs. For Islamic terrorists it could be genuine protest for Iraq, military bases on their land or opposition to how people live in the West. It's similar for the IRA, many of them were fighting in their minds to break away from England, to take back Ireland by force, rather than Christian beliefs.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Why must we bring up Christianity when someone criticizes Islam?

To remind you that your own mythology is just as bad?

 

There's a Norwegian saying that goes "Clean before your own door before you clean before others'".

 

I love it how there is this knee jerk reaction on the left that naively marry's the two religions together.

Maybe if I understood what you meant I'd be able to reply to that.

 

Are there more Muslims blowing up innocents in the name of Islam or more Christians blowing up innocents in the name of Christianity?

Do you mean right now, or throughout history?

 

I think Christianity has a good deal more crimes in its history than Islam.

 

This would assert that terrorist groups kill for the simple love of killing.

You're joking, right?

 

So the only two reasons to be a terrorist is a. Love of violence and b. Religion? So if you're not doing it because of religion, then you're doing it "for the simple love of killing?"

 

There can't be, say, politics involved?

[toms]

The reason for mentioning christianity (or extreme hinduism, or any other religion really) is that I simply don't believe there is anything fundamentally different about Islam to any other religion.

 

Saying that Islam is in some way destined to be more violent and more fascistic than other religions seems flse to me. If you look at the ancient books of most religions they are just as mysogynistic, radical, cruel etc.. as the Qur'an.

 

Its true that right now the islam religion seems to be spawning more violent radicals than other religions. But at various times, and in various places, all religions have spawned violent radicals willing to kill for their faith.

 

So why is islam spawning so many extremists now? I'd say there are a few reasons.

 

1) If you look at most of the violent groups from all religions they tend to come from the poorest and most downtrodden nations. Hindu extremists in india, Lords resistance Army and a lot of others in africa, Most of the nations in the middle east, etc.

 

The other common factor in religious extremism seems to be oppression of a people (such as in afganistan, or northern ireland, or saudi arabia).

 

So when a people are downtrodden, starving or opressed they tend to turn to extreme ideas that they hope will save them. There are always people willing to exploit tht, whether they be islamic fundamentalists, christian cult leaders, kkk clan leaders, or whatever.

 

2) Israel. Boy i hate to bring it up, cos it always radicalises and kills any thread.. but its a major catalyst in all of this. It adds to a sense of injustice, it gives the extremists an enemy to point at, it demonstrates the US's bias.. it just causes so many problems on so many levels. Heck, the mere mention of it on these boards tends to turn most people into radical extremists.

 

3) Saudi Arabia. 40 or 50 years ago most mulsims were pretty moderate. Since then the Saudi royal family has spent billions exporting THEIR extremely intollerant sect of islam. Almost all mosques and religious schools around the world get some funding from the saudi royal family... on the condition they use saudi approved transaltions of the qur'an.. which are much less tollerant than the older versions.

 

Its clear from the evidence that all religions are capable of the extremist violence that al quaida currently employ. What is needed is a catalyst, and the right conditions to trigger it. It just happens that right now that catalyst exists for the islamic peoples a lot more than it does for the christan peoples.

 

(NB: The internal wars among different sects in christianity alone killed 4-5million people in the middle ages in europe. That was when the conditions were right for those peoples to be provoked into violence).

[Maxstate]

I'm sorry if this may seem a rude or 'flaming' post, but the OP is very ignorant.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

The reason for mentioning christianity (or extreme hinduism, or any other religion really) is that I simply don't believe there is anything fundamentally different about Islam to any other religion.

 

Saying that Islam is in some way destined to be more violent and more fascistic than other religions seems flse to me. If you look at the ancient books of most religions they are just as mysogynistic, radical, cruel etc.. as the Qur'an.

I have to say that was an exceptionally good way to sum up two pages of replies:).

 

If you happen to be raped you'll need four witnesses or you will be charged with adultery and punished of course for disobeying 'almighty Allah'. Apparently he's 'oh so merciful'.

Oh, but he is. The very fact that the condemned are in Hell rather than in a much worse place, when they have no rights whatsoever concerning post-mortem treatment, is a testament to Allah's mercy. Consider that he could've lined the infidels up and shot them dead.

 

()

[Nancy Allen``]

I'm sorry if this may seem a rude or 'flaming' post, but the OP is very ignorant.

 

You find that? I find that he can dish it out but can't take it, and yes that might be sledging him but this applies to anyone. You can't be controversial and have a glass jaw, it just doesn't work.

[toms]

While I consider Islam to be fundamentally similar to all religions, I am willing to concede that, at the moment and on balance, it does seem less reformed than many of the other religions.

 

However what gets me confused is that all the people who make the most fuss about islamic law, islamic states and islam being unreformed are the ones who want to promote christian law, christian states and "traditional christian values".

(Eg: They want everyone to get married. they don't like homosexuals either, they don't beleive in the advances in science like evolution, they want religin taught in schools, etc..)

 

And I'd argue that Islam HAS been as reformed as christianity, if not more so, at numerous points in history. The fact it has recently become more traditional, isolationist and extreme is as a result of two things. (1) Saudi influence. (2) The effects of american foreign policy.

 

hopefully our muslim brothers can shrug off these effects and go back to being leaders in medicine, science, literature and other fields.

[Kurgan]

Not to fan the flames here or anything, but correct me if I'm wrong, didn't the Taliban admit that Osama bin Laden was actually in their jurisdiction, but refused to turn him over to Western authorities? (claiming instead that they would expedite him to a Muslim nation to be tried under an Islamic court?)

 

I agree, we didn't have justification to go to Iraq (not based on 9/11 or WMD anyway), but it seems that the alleged mastermind of the WTC attacks was in fact within the hands of the Taliban government at the time before we invaded them, and we let him slip through our fingers (presumably he fled either during the negotiations or immediately after, and before the attack).