Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Frankly, I'm surprised no one made a thread about this (unless I missed it). In a speech made by President Bush, he said that the United States was in a war against Islamic fascists, which resulted in...mixed responses by various peoples in the United States. Some agreed, some said that it was inappropriate for him to say so...so what's your take?

P.S. I had to tear apart some chicken today for chicken salad sandwiches, and my hands smell like chicken now.

If your asking it's hateful against a Religion, no it is not, they're Fascists, who happen to be Islamic


PS: Mmmmmm Chicken

yes, its like how the nazi regime was referred to as christian fascists.....wait a minute

the terrorist ideal is that anyone who is not them deserves to die, including muslems who are not fundamentalist wackos. the bush team needs to sit down and come up with an appropriate term and quit flaring racism.

Originally posted by PVS
yes, its like how the nazi regime was referred to as christian fascists.....wait a minute

the terrorist ideal is that anyone who is not them deserves to die, including muslems who are not fundamentalist wackos. the bush team needs to sit down and come up with an appropriate term and quit flaring racism. *waits*

Originally posted by lord xyz
*waits*

wait for it........

Originally posted by PVS
wait for it........ It's been 12 minutes already, how long til I can stop?

Originally posted by PVS
yes, its like how the nazi regime was referred to as christian fascists.....wait a minute



were they...

hitler himself was quoted as saying you can be christian or German...you cant be both

not to mention the nazi written documentation entitled "The Persecution of the Christian Churches"

Originally posted by jaden101
were they...

hitler himself was quoted as saying you can be christian or German...you cant be both

not to mention the nazi written documentation entitled "The Persecution of the Christian Churches" I thought Hitler said "The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it."

Well it is a war on terrorism right and right now the terrorist (with a few exceptions) are indeed Islamic Fascist; so people need to lay off of the 'sensitivity' trip and just deal with it. Personally, I'm no fan of GWB, so anytime I hear him say something, I tend to think the worst. But, if any other president were to say "Islamic Fascist" it wouldn't be a problem.

.................................................................................................................................................

In the 30's, Hitler was often heard quoting Christianity as a rallying tool for Germans. But, later into his reign, he was no friend of Christianity/Religion. There's also proof that he wasn't very religious starting from a young age.

So saying that the Nazi's were Christian Fascist is sloppy thinking, I do not think anyone could find anything in the Bible that would reasonably condone Hitler's actions.

Originally posted by Robtard
In the 30's, Hitler was often heard quoting Christianity as a rallying tool for Germans. But, later into his reign, he was no friend of Christianity/Religion.

So saying that the Nazi's were Christian Fascist is sloppy thinking, I do not think anyone could find anything in the Bible that would reasonably condone Hitler's actions.

the point is that at the rise of fascism in germany, christianity was not rejected by hitler, as you said, and also that many german fascists were chistian. but yes, a sloppy analogy it was.

so i will then reference the christian kkk. or the christian i.r.a.

Originally posted by Robtard
In the 30's, Hitler was often heard quoting Christianity as a rallying tool for Germans. But, later into his reign, he was no friend of Christianity/Religion.

So saying that the Nazi's were Christian Fascist is sloppy thinking, I do not think anyone could find anything in the Bible that would reasonably condone Hitler's actions.


indeed...before hitler came into power he actively attempted to keep the catholics "on-side" as a means to get into power

once in power he heavily criticised and persecuted all forms of religion

basically the crux is that hitler and the Nazis never claimed what they were doing was in the name of christianity and God

whereas groups like al-qaeda are claimant to be representatives of Islam and Allah...so to call them islamic fascists is only incorrect in the sense that anyone with a brain knows that al-qaeda doesn't represent Islam

Originally posted by jaden101
so to call them islamic fascists is only incorrect in the sense that anyone with a brain knows that al-qaeda doesn't represent Islam

you overestimate the logic of the masses jaden....dangerously so

Originally posted by PVS
you overestimate the logic of the masses jaden....dangerously so

true...guilty as charged

although the media in this country has gone out of its way to produce television programmes to tell us that al-qaeda doesn't represent Islam

and i mean HUNDREDS of different reports and documentaries since 9/11

you'd think that anyone with the tiniest bit of sense would take it on board

then again...i'm overestimating the logic factor again

The truth is a Majority of Islam does support Al Quada, ironically, in most places outside of the Middle East (Chechnya being one of the few) the Muslims arn't supportive of the Terrorists at all, and actually hate them

i will say one thing about the sensitivity of some islamic nations

the head of the pakistani cricket board said that because an umpire said that the pakistani captain was tampering with the ball during a match...the umpire was in turn, insulting the entire country of pakistan and calling them all cheats

lighten up a bit

you only need to look at the over reaction of the depiction the prophet mohammed a few months ago....particularly when Islam forbids the depiction of ANY prophet...including jesus, abraham etc etc

did you see the same uproar about the life of brian?...passion of the christ?, the last temptation...

any of the hundreds of religious videos?

no...why not?

Originally posted by FeceMan
Frankly, I'm surprised no one made a thread about this (unless I missed it). In a speech made by President Bush, he said that the United States was in a war against Islamic fascists, which resulted in...mixed responses by various peoples in the United States. Some agreed, some said that it was inappropriate for him to say so...so what's your take?

P.S. I had to tear apart some chicken today for chicken salad sandwiches, and my hands smell like chicken now.

Far better to keep things simple - terrorists and fascist. Doesn't need to be complicated by putting it with ideologies or religions that are not wholly bad. Terrorism in general - since there are, and have been, many different types of terrorists over the year whose terrorist actions have been propagated by misguided adherence to a political or religious ideal.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Frankly, I'm surprised no one made a thread about this (unless I missed it). In a speech made by President Bush, he said that the United States was in a war against Islamic fascists, which resulted in...mixed responses by various peoples in the United States. Some agreed, some said that it was inappropriate for him to say so...so what's your take?

P.S. I had to tear apart some chicken today for chicken salad sandwiches, and my hands smell like chicken now.
to them we are infidels. to us they are fanatics or facsists. whatever the case, this is a war we will not win. its gonna get messy and we are gonna lose alot of marines.

Originally posted by jaden101
i will say one thing about the sensitivity of some islamic nations

the head of the pakistani cricket board said that because an umpire said that the pakistani captain was tampering with the ball during a match...the umpire was in turn, insulting the entire country of pakistan and calling them all cheats

lighten up a bit

you only need to look at the over reaction of the depiction the prophet mohammed a few months ago....particularly when Islam forbids the depiction of ANY prophet...including jesus, abraham etc etc

did you see the same uproar about the life of brian?...passion of the christ?, the last temptation...

any of the hundreds of religious videos?

no...why not?

Because there's nothing openly condemning making depictions of holy prophets in the Bible.

Originally posted by PVS
yes, its like how the nazi regime was referred to as christian fascists.....wait a minute

the terrorist ideal is that anyone who is not them deserves to die, including muslems who are not fundamentalist wackos. the bush team needs to sit down and come up with an appropriate term and quit flaring racism.
It's hardly flaring racism.

Originally posted by FeceMan
It's hardly flaring racism.

Perhaps not, but it has the potential to be. The terrorists/"Fascists are the problem, it shouldn't matter if they are Muslim or Atheistic or Communists or whatever. Adding anything simply singles out a particular group, and encourages certain elements to extend the term "Islamic" to all of Islam.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Perhaps not, but it has the potential to be. The terrorists/"Fascists are the problem, it shouldn't matter if they are Muslim or Atheistic or Communists or whatever. Adding anything simply singles out a particular group, and encourages certain elements to extend the term "Islamic" to all of Islam.
That's true, but I believe that President Bush was using the term to differentiate between peaceful practitioners of Islam and those not-so-peaceful practitioners.

Originally posted by FeceMan
That's true, but I believe that President Bush was using the term to differentiate between peaceful practitioners of Islam and those not-so-peaceful practitioners.

Maybe, but once again, like so many times before, he does it in a remarkably ham fisted fashion.

President Bush hasn't used Islamic Fascists actually(I think), that would be Conservative Activists/Talk Show Hosts

i know a couple of islamic people. they arent really ridiculed that much.

they are globally.

well, thats bound to happen. one bad apple, know what i mean?

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
The truth is a Majority of Islam does support Al Quada

see what i mean jaden? dangerous overestimation

Originally posted by FeceMan
It's hardly flaring racism.

not in you, apparently. but would you be so obtuse to make a declaration like that feceman?

Originally posted by Himo
Because there's nothing openly condemning making depictions of holy prophets in the Bible.

you miss the point...the quran forbids the depiction of ANY prophet...not just muslim prophets...if muslims so devoutly follow their religion then why dont they react to any depiction of a prophet?

indeed

"So people are gettinf tired of hearing about 'Islamic fundamentalists', are they? Hmmm...Let's think up a new term to turn everyone on..."

how about

"cannon fodder"

seriously though....going back to this point

i think the US administration would actually prefer a rise in support for al qaeda to the extent where entire nations support them actively

this is because in terms of conventional war....nations are far easier to defeat than small displaced groups


in that context the US could simply withdraw any troops and then let rip with the biggest weapons they have

Originally posted by jaden101
seriously though....going back to this point

i think the US administration would actually prefer a rise in support for al qaeda to the extent where entire nations support them actively

this is because in terms of conventional war....nations are far easier to defeat than small displaced groups


in that context the US could simply withdraw any troops and then let rip with the biggest weapons they have

Which would make me question the US administration even more were they to openly declare such a hope. Though to be fair, it probably wouldn't work. It is the rather popularised image that all the trouble in Iraq is being caused by foreign fighters when this is, in fact, not the case. The vast number of insurgents are, apparently, Iraqi born and bred. Their numbers are drawn from former regime supporters, soldiers, Sunni and Shi'ite Militias - They fought Iraq as a nation, and all it did was drive huge numbers of opponents underground.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Which would make me question the US administration even more were they to openly declare such a hope. Though to be fair, it probably wouldn't work. It is the rather popularised image that all the trouble in Iraq is being caused by foreign fighters when this is, in fact, not the case. The vast number of insurgents are, apparently, Iraqi born and bred. Their numbers are drawn from former regime supporters, soldiers, Sunni and Shi'ite Militias - They fought Iraq as a nation, and all it did was drive huge numbers of opponents underground.

they didn't fight Iraq as a nation though...if they did if would be very unlikely they would be in Iraq now...they would simply flatten the country as much as possible before going in with complete disregard for accurate strikes

Originally posted by jaden101
they didn't fight Iraq as a nation though...if they did if would be very unlikely they would be in Iraq now...they would simply flatten the country as much as possible before going in with complete disregard for accurate strikes

So what you saying is... that if every person (or the vast majority of people) in a nation were terrorists... they could just kill them all. Unlike Iraq where they fought the machinery of the nation (army, government) and not the nation itself (the people.) Winning in the first scenario would be... well, one of the saddest victories ever.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
So what you saying is... that if every person (or the vast majority of people) in a nation were terrorists... they could just kill them all. Unlike Iraq where they fought the machinery of the nation (army, government) and not the nation itself (the people.) Winning in the first scenario would be... well, one of the saddest victories ever.

indeed it would be a terrible thing but from the viewpoint of the US administration it would be an easier war to fight

then again that goes by the assumption that they are dealing with an ideology that is similar to National socialism or communism where it can be battered into oblivion by economic or military means

unfortunately i think extremist islamic views are much harder to defeat

so realistically there are only 2 options

defeat the ideology...or wipe out everyone who follows that ideology

thats the only 2 ways to win the "war on terror"

and seeing as its abndantly clear that the US and the UK are completely ****ing up the attempt to defeat the ideology that doesnt really leave much room for other options

Originally posted by jaden101
and seeing as its abndantly clear that the US and the UK are completely ****ing up the attempt to defeat the ideology that doesnt really leave much room for other options

True, but I would say it is equally due to the way they are trying to defeat the ideology - that is in far to conventional terms. While it certainly seems their is room for military actions in such a battle, it has to be carried out on more levels then that. It might be sounding cliched -but the battle for the minds and hearts of the prospective person who might become a terrorist is, I dare say, of equal importance to killing an existing terrorist. Little is achieved in defeating the concept of "terror" if in the process you anger a lot of people and send them down the path of terrorism. A nasty cycle.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
True, but I would say it is equally due to the way they are trying to defeat the ideology - that is in far to conventional terms. While it certainly seems their is room for military actions in such a battle, it has to be carried out on more levels then that. It might be sounding cliched -but the battle for the minds and hearts of the prospective person who might become a terrorist is, I dare say, of equal importance to killing an existing terrorist. Little is achieved in defeating the concept of "terror" if in the process you anger a lot of people and send them down the path of terrorism. A nasty cycle.

indeed...hence i say they're making a rather large **** up of it

this is probably down to massive misunderstanding of Islam from the western perspective

it also doesn't help that our "allies" that are islamic countries...egypt, saudi arabia, pakistan seem to be extremely passive in their help with regards to "hearts and minds" and it is their understanding and diplomacy that is most needed

at least it seems that way from a UK perspective because very little is shown by the media of these countries calling for condemnation of terrorism

perhaps using this method would help prevent UK nationals of Pakistani (or wherever) heritage from committing acts like those of 7/7...if they saw that leaders from the countries of their ancestry condemned the terrorism

Originally posted by jaden101
seriously though....going back to this point

i think the US administration would actually prefer a rise in support for al qaeda to the extent where entire nations support them actively

this is because in terms of conventional war....nations are far easier to defeat than small displaced groups


in that context the US could simply withdraw any troops and then let rip with the biggest weapons they have
"displaced groups"...exactly. they are too far spread all over the world to defeat.

I'm having a difficult time in understanding how this was a "ham-fisted" way to put it.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I'm having a difficult time in understanding how this was a "ham-fisted" way to put it.

I like to think a little word in times like this.... tact. One can, by way of tact, say a great deal without it having the potential to inflame, incite or insult.

You said you saw it as Bush trying to differentiate between the two - interpretation. He didn't sufficiently explain it, didn't use a great deal of tact (but then he never has) or any of that. Especially when one wonders why Islam should even be coming into it - it is a question of terrorists in general. Fundamentalism in all forms. His attempts are very often hamfisted, as they lack clarity, can easily be taken the wrong way.

feceman, one more time, pay attention:

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
The truth is a Majority of Islam does support Al Quada, ironically, in most places outside of the Middle East (Chechnya being one of the few) the Muslims arn't supportive of the Terrorists at all, and actually hate them

this isnt about pc, or even the feelings of the muslem community. its simply about not encouraging baseless and unjust hatred of a religion. though the intention (perhaps) is not there, its obvious that a great many people use this as further justification to blame everything on a islam. religion does not belong in the debate. when catholics were bombing protestants in the u.k., religion was never mentioned, and rightfully so. it was just plain terrorism. why is it all of the sudden different when christianity is not involved?

Originally posted by FeceMan
Frankly, I'm surprised no one made a thread about this (unless I missed it). In a speech made by President Bush, he said that the United States was in a war against Islamic fascists, which resulted in...mixed responses by various peoples in the United States. Some agreed, some said that it was inappropriate for him to say so...so what's your take?

Well, what would Bush's reaction be if someone called him a facist?

Originally posted by Nichole
Well, what would Bush's reaction be if someone called him a facist?

Probably laugh and get Cheney to invite him quail hunting...

Seriously, though, are you implying that "fascist" is not an appropriate term with which to designate these radical jihadist groups? I personally think it might be too timid.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Probably laugh and get Cheney to invite him quail hunting...

Seriously, though, are you implying that "fascist" is not an appropriate term with which to designate these radical jihadist groups? I personally think it might be too timid.

No, just the Islam part. Because really it is purely an intellectual addition. Should we care if a terrorist is Islamic or Christian or neither? Or just that they are a terrorist. It is, in uncertain and emotionally provocative times, an unnecessary extrapolation.

from the whitehouse and foxnews:
war on ISLAMIC fascists

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
"So people are gettinf tired of hearing about 'Islamic fundamentalists', are they? Hmmm...Let's think up a new term to turn everyone on..."


Smelly Pants Fascists.

Done and done.

Originally posted by BackFire
Smelly Pants Fascists.

Done and done.

accurate, yet vague. what if its taken the wrong way and we end up invading alabama?

what do you think dubya?

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/633/563105983depb6.gif

Originally posted by PVS
from the whitehouse and foxnews:
war on ISLAMIC fascists
Despite Bush's...oh, hell, it doesn't even matter.

Qutbists would be the best term

can we start a war on American facism?