What exactly is Islamofascism?

[Noobtastic]

Bigotry and intolerance? You hold us with such high regard, but to consider us secure is a misnomer.

I never said that.

The ?war on terror? was started by box cutters, further acts of war against us would be just as easy.

Agreed. What people don't understand is the majority of terrorist attacks by islamist aren't against us. People are given the illusion that this hordes of muslims were once a peaceful and loving population, and it wasn't until the big bad American army came stopping in did they grab their Aks and start mowing down Iraqi citizens.

We did not start anything. Their fight has been continual since the dawn of Islam.

I guess, if we want to consider Europe already dead and dying, then yeah we?re not so bad off, but we?re far from secure.

Okay.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Noobtastic
you're sympathies for fleeing Iraqis will not last when intellectually capable people start to not only consume civil services, but remove basic freedoms to clear the way for Allah.

First of all I have no sympathies for the fleeing Iraqis. Secondly I'm not worried about this ever happening to the U.S.

Islamberg New York, the separatist militant camp is a beginning, not an end. Funny thing about ideologies, they can spread like wildfire ? faster now that the internet has made the world a smaller place.

We are not in trouble of being converted in the foreseeable future, this is true, but a mere 19 men struck us worse than previous history. Even if they became ONLY 1% of our population that is still a 3 million potential terrorists. More than enough potential to carry out further acts of war ? especially with foreign financing and weapons smuggling.

I think the real danger lies in Europe, not the United States. The U.S is too consumed by bigotry and intolerance to allow a thriving secluded muslim community within the state. Europe is royally f**ked though.

My swedish nanny left because she could no longer work without being harassed by the newly established muslim community (which will become the majority in twenty years. Yay, they may beat their women, but they sure do screw a lot).

She used to be work in architecture or something.

Anyways, let freedom ring.

:Q

oh man, the ignorance is pungent in this post. almost makes you laugh if you weren't choking on the disgust over people like noobtastic.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

Now your Beef is with Muslims. So for the sake of a poor argument, let us assume ALL immigranats from the Middle East Are Muslims, and 50% of Sub Saharan Africans are (just for sicks). the others, for argument, are not.

Why?

that is approximately 250,000 "foreign born" Muslims currently there.

Ok.

You are telling me that in 20 years 250,000 thousand are going to displace a population of approximately 8,000,000 native SWEEDS.

Uh, yeah. Muslims pro-create 4 children to a single family, while most European countries cannot replenish their own population.

We aren't even considering "other" that form the large bulk of the extra 1.1 million foreigners...

I'm not debating statistics. I don't see how this has anything to do with the facts mentioned above.

My points:

A) Muslim immigrants, for the most part, have proved incapable of assimilating in European countries

B) Cities have been forced to submit to prehistoric teachings and culture because a very small minority feels their God is being discriminated by unholy things like naked women, other religions, movies, civil rights, etc.

C) Don't believe me? Take a gander at the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Holland.

D) Your religion of peace is being demonstrated all over the world. check out
thereligionofpeace.com for statistics. They provide information of the daily bombings and attacks that occur in unimportant locations by Islamic Jihad.

wow... ignorantastic! noob, you really live up to your name.

how about YOU take a gander at those countries? actually, even better yet, how about you actually go to those countries and learn something.

and, yeah, really nice unbiased website. fascist fear fanatics like you run that site... so much spin, you wouldn't be able to tell which way was up.

i don't think there's anyone more ignorant and ridiculous in these entire forums than noob.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Noobtastic


Now your Beef is with Muslims. So for the sake of a poor argument, let us assume ALL immigranats from the Middle East Are Muslims, and 50% of Sub Saharan Africans are (just for sicks). the others, for argument, are not.

Why?



[/quote]

You are the one talking about the "bla bla bla evil Islam" so its clear your beef is with Muslims. Unless you yourself have no clear cut idea who are you afraid of....I guess that works better because you can lash out at everyone around you

I'm not debating statistics. I don't see how this has anything to do with the facts mentioned above.

Here is why its all relevant:


Of that 250,000 --> not everyone will be married. And not everyone will be of the age of marriage.

But for the sake of argument - lets assume that there are 125,000 Male Muslim immigrants, and 125,000 female Muslim immigrants - each that form their own couple. And FOR the sake of argument, each couple produces ONE child EVERY YEAR. AND for the sake of argument, lets assume NO MUSLIMS DIE. And let us assume that their offspring does NOT reproduce within this 20 year period (and considering how the "eldest" would be only 20 years old, this is easily possible)

Then we'd have a MUSLIM population of 2,500,000 assuming that 125,000 couples of child rearing age are able to produce ONE CHILD every YEAR

Now let us look at the native SWEED population:

~8,000,000.


Lets make the same assumptions that No Sweeds die, but let us assume that Sweeds stop pro creating. Let us also assume the the other ~ 1 million foreigners ALL DIE with NO offspring

UNLESS 5,500,000 die in 20 years, it is Impossible for Muslims to make up 50% of the population of sweeden.


Notice ALL the assumptions, which are almost ALL VERY VERY VERY favorable to the idea that Muslims immigrants are out populating the native peoples:
*Immigration and Emigration is non existant
*EVERY religiously Muslim Couple can procreate
*EVERY religiously Muslim couple produces a child EVERY YEAR for TWENTY YEARS
*None of their offspring Procreate
*All other foreigners commit mass suicide or simply die
*NO Sweeds procreate
*Death of Sweeds are not constrained, although not defined

If you can't read all that here is the punchline:

125,000 Muslim couples must produce a child EVERY YEAR for approximately 20 years AND over 5.5 MILLION Sweeds must die in order for Muslims to become a majority in Sweeden in 20 years

Of course a REALISTIC situation is NOWHERE near this:
*Not EVERY person who identifies as a Muslim is of the age to pro create
*VERY FEW IF NOT ZERO Muslims will produce TWENTY children over your 20 year time frame
*Sweeds will ALSO procreate, but at lower levels
*Muslims, Along with Sweeds, will die of MANY causes
*Immigration and Emigration will STILL occur
*Foreigners will NOT commit mass suicide




All this points to numbers that will be substancially lower. By your own admission , you claim that every "family" has "4 children":

Uh, yeah. Muslims pro-create 4 children to a single family, while most European countries cannot replenish their own population.

so MY POINT:

Originally posted by: Noobtastic


My swedish nanny left because she could no longer work without being harassed by the newly established muslim community (which will become the majority in twenty years. Yay, they may beat their women, but they sure do screw a lot).

is you are wrong.

How much simpler could this be?


As for the rest of what you post - you want me to trust the sources you visit, yet apparantly you believe Muslims will out populate all Native Sweeds within 20 years?

To say it more bluntly: You don't make common sense, but you expect us to believe what you say?


There are some very SERIOUS discussions that need to be made with regards to assimilation in Europe, and this assery is simply not worth a discussion. It ultimately does a dis service because IMPORTANT topics from a viewpoint grounded on REALITY does not get the time that your mongering does.

 

[Noobtastic]

wow... ignorantastic! noob, you really live up to your name.

Clever.

how about YOU take a gander at those countries? actually, even better yet, how about you actually go to those countries and learn something.

I have.

and, yeah, really nice unbiased website.

Just because it doesn't have Daily Show slobbered all over it doesn't make it any less bias.
Are you denying those events listed in the "recent islamic attacks" section? I don't really care for the other stuff anyways.

News links are provided too, check em out.

fascist

Stop. Saying. Fascist.

You do not know what it means.

fear fanatics like you run that site... so much spin, you wouldn't be able to tell which way was up.

Nothing to do with fear. Stating the obvious, more like it...

i don't think there's anyone more ignorant and ridiculous in these entire forums than noob.

Most people are full of s**t and zealotry. Incapable of accepting FACTS that conflict with their infected personal agenda.

 

[Noobtastic]

You are the one talking about the "bla bla bla evil Islam" so its clear your beef is with Muslims.

No.

Unless you yourself have no clear cut idea who are you afraid of....I guess that works better because you can lash out at everyone around you

No.

Here is why its all relevant:


Of that 250,000 --> not everyone will be married. And not everyone will be of the age of marriage.

Okay. Muslims procreate 4x faster than Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Chinese, Japanese, Americans, Hicks, White Trash, etc.

But for the sake of argument - lets assume that there are 125,000 Male Muslim immigrants, and 125,000 female Muslim immigrants - each that form their own couple. And FOR the sake of argument, each couple produces ONE child EVERY YEAR. AND for the sake of argument, lets assume NO MUSLIMS DIE. And let us assume that their offspring does NOT reproduce within this 20 year period (and considering how the "eldest" would be only 20 years old, this is easily possible)

*sigh*

As I said, MUSLIMS REPOPULATE 4x FASTER THAN EUROPEANS. But that is only half the story.

Then we'd have a MUSLIM population of 2,500,000 assuming that 125,000 couples of child rearing age are able to produce ONE CHILD every YEAR

Right.

Now let us look at the native SWEED population:

~8,000,000.

Ok.

Lets make the same assumptions that No Sweeds die, but let us assume that Sweeds stop pro creating. Let us also assume the the other ~ 1 million foreigners ALL DIE with NO offspring

Look, assume way, draw your hypotheticals, punch me with your exhausted statistics most of which I and everyone here already knows.

You're entire argument revolves around digits. You have yet to address immigration and assimilation issues, documented and recorded exodus of native citizens, and increase in violence, most notably rape, in heavy muslim immigrated cities.

UNLESS 5,500,000 die in 20 years, it is Impossible for Muslims to make up 50% of the population of sweeden.

It's sweden, and muslims will make up the majority in Europe by 2050 assuming the repopulation and abortion rate continues among citizens...

Notice ALL the assumptions, which are almost ALL VERY VERY VERY favorable to the idea that Muslims immigrants are out populating the native peoples:
*Immigration and Emigration is non existant
*EVERY religiously Muslim Couple can procreate
*EVERY religiously Muslim couple produces a child EVERY YEAR for TWENTY YEARS
*None of their offspring Procreate
*All other foreigners commit mass suicide or simply die
*NO Sweeds procreate
*Death of Sweeds are not constrained, although not defined

Ok.

If you can't read all that here is the punchline:

125,000 Muslim couples must produce a child EVERY YEAR for approximately 20 years AND over 5.5 MILLION Sweeds must die in order for Muslims to become a majority in Sweeden in 20 years

Ok.

Of course a REALISTIC situation is NOWHERE near this:
*Not EVERY person who identifies as a Muslim is of the age to pro create
*VERY FEW IF NOT ZERO Muslims will produce TWENTY children over your 20 year time frame

Ok.

*Sweeds will ALSO procreate, but at lower levels
*Muslims, Along with Sweeds, will die of MANY causes
*Immigration and Emigration will STILL occur
*Foreigners will NOT commit mass suicide

Ok.

All this points to numbers that will be substancially lower. By your own admission , you claim that every "family" has "4 children":

No.

Uh, yeah. Muslims pro-create 4 children to a single family, while most European countries cannot replenish their own population.

Ok.

so MY POINT:

is you are wrong.

How much simpler could this be?

Persuasive.

As for the rest of what you post - you want me to trust the sources you visit, yet apparantly you believe Muslims will out populate all Native Sweeds within 20 years?

I could careless what you trust. I can't change people who do not want to change. Smother yourself in bulls**t for all I care, but when you start seeing Allah be praised and evaporation of civil rights, don't say I didn't warn ya.

To say it more bluntly: You don't make common sense, but you expect us to believe what you say?

I don't expect anyone to believe anything. I'm not here to preach.

There are some very SERIOUS discussions that need to be made with regards to assimilation in Europe, and this assery is simply not worth a discussion.

Ok.

It ultimately does a dis service because IMPORTANT topics from a viewpoint grounded on REALITY does not get the time that your mongering does.

Right.

 

[Narmer]

Why is anybody still taking Noobtastic seriously? This is the guy that lies about white formations on his penis just to get attention. Says a lot about the 16 year old boy whose talking about men as if he's one of them.

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: Narmer
Why is anybody still taking Noobtastic seriously? This is the guy that lies about white formations on his penis just to get attention. Says a lot about the 16 year old boy whose talking about men as if he's one of them.

lEEt debatzers skillz.

I had white crap on my penis. Sorry to offend you.

Focus on the thread pah-lease. Using personal attacks that in no way relate to the topic is juvenile, petty, and downright stupid. This isn't the 6th grade.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

Okay. Muslims procreate 4x faster than Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Chinese, Japanese, Americans, Hicks, White Trash, etc.

Now you are changing your argument - thus it is not the same as the original.

Furthermore, your post doesn't make sense because you compare a religion to two other religion(Christianity and Jews), one idea that can be a religion or a philosophy depending how it is practiced (Buddhists), two races(Chinese and Japanese people), a nationality (Americans), and then two derogatory statements for white people(Hicks, White Trash).

Muslims are not a race. Any one of the people that are listed can be Muslims. I'm an American, but I'm also a Muslim.

*sigh*

As I said, MUSLIMS REPOPULATE 4x FASTER THAN EUROPEANS. But that is only half the story.

Links as to proof? I'm not denying that what you say isn't true...but considering how your evidence seems to be random numbers without a basis or justification, I hesitate to accept what you may say at face value. I stated every single assumption I brought forth, explained that I tried to create a situation that would help to maximuze the Muslim population. I then stated WHY any realistic situation would fall woefully short of what you claim. You just...claimed.

Look, assume way, draw your hypotheticals, punch me with your exhausted statistics most of which I and everyone here already knows.

Then if you know it why did you state that in 20 years the Muslims will be a majority?

You're entire argument revolves around digits. You have yet to address immigration and assimilation issues, documented and recorded exodus of native citizens, and increase in violence, most notably rape, in heavy muslim immigrated cities.

I never said ANYTHING or DENIED assimilation issues! I called you out for B.S. saying that immigrants (which you accepted by my terms earlier to be all middle easterners and part of Sub Saharan Africa) are going to be MAJORITY in Sweden.

You should REALLLY stick to the subject and stop switching topics.

It's sweden, and muslims will make up the majority in Europe by 2050 assuming the repopulation and abortion rate continues among citizens...

What the hell does "Its Sweden" imply? Are you going to further tell me that the most common name in England for new baby boys is Mohammed (hint: its not)?
It sounds like you have a problem with the (hopeful) creation of a European Muslim identity. Then again - I don't want to stray from the topic at hand.

IF you are actually interested in information on Muslims in Europe, here is something from BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4385768.stm

All this points to numbers that will be substancially lower. By your own admission , you claim that every "family" has "4 children":

No.

Uh, yeah. Muslims pro-create 4 children to a single family, while most European countries cannot replenish their own population.

Ok

You just contradicted yourself. You can't say NO what I stated you say, and then say YES when I give you the direct quote of what you had said.

Persuasive.

Because you are doing a great job? You can't even keep on bloody topic...

I could careless what you trust. I can't change people who do not want to change. Smother yourself in bulls**t for all I care, but when you start seeing Allah be praised and evaporation of civil rights, don't say I didn't warn ya.

uhh yeah.. okay gg nub.
I already praise God, and I'm already watching the evaporation of my civil rights. And its not because of other Muslims, its because of the federal administration of where I live.

I don't expect anyone to believe anything. I'm not here to preach.

I'm glad you expect no one to believe, because even used cooked numbers DESIGNED to maximum the alleged takeover of Sweden by Muslims, the world's most ideal conditions come WOEFULLY short of what you claim.

 

[Noobtastic]

Now you are changing your argument - thus it is not the same as the original.

No, I am rephrasing.

Furthermore, your post doesn't make sense because you compare a religion to two other religion(Christianity and Jews), one idea that can be a religion or a philosophy depending how it is practiced (Buddhists), two races(Chinese and Japanese people), a nationality (Americans), and then two derogatory statements for white people(Hicks, White Trash).

Giving examples.

Muslims are not a race. Any one of the people that are listed can be Muslims. I'm an American, but I'm also a Muslim.

Clearly. People aren't ethically born muslim, unlike Jews, but most people who are born into Islamic theocracies end up being Muslim. I mean, ya kinda have to.

Links as to proof?

Okay. This says x3: http://www.brookings.edu/opini...ddleeast_taspinar.aspx

This says x3 http://www.cfr.org/publication/8252/europe.html

More info: http://www.geocities.com/richl...b/1st-world-islam.html

I read somewhere it was x4, but there is always fluxes in "statistics."

I'm not denying that what you say isn't true...but considering how your evidence seems to be random numbers without a basis or justification

Perfectly justified.

I hesitate to accept what you may say at face value.

This isn't face value. I'm stating the obvious, here. You think I'm being partisan?

I stated every single assumption I brought forth, explained that I tried to create a situation that would help to maximuze the Muslim population. I then stated WHY any realistic situation would fall woefully short of what you claim. You just...claimed.

OK.

Then if you know it why did you state that in 20 years the Muslims will be a majority?

Because they will?

At least some countries.

I never said ANYTHING or DENIED assimilation issues!

Exactly.

I called you out for B.S. saying that immigrants (which you accepted by my terms earlier to be all middle easterners and part of Sub Saharan Africa) are going to be MAJORITY in Sweden.

They are.

In terms of power, they will be the majority.

You should REALLLY stick to the subject and stop switching topics.

The topic was never switched.

What the hell does "Its Sweden" imply?

typing error.

Are you going to further tell me that the most common name in England for new baby boys is Mohammed (hint: its not)?

It's #2:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.../uk/article1890354.ece

It sounds like you have a problem with the (hopeful) creation of a European Muslim identity.

Yes.

Then again - I don't want to stray from the topic at hand.

Ok.

IF you are actually interested in information on Muslims in Europe, here is something from BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4385768.stm

Thanks.

All this points to numbers that will be substancially lower. By your own admission , you claim that every "family" has "4 children":

Ok.

You just contradicted yourself. You can't say NO what I stated you say, and then say YES when I give you the direct quote of what you had said.

No....wait, yes...?

Because you are doing a great job? You can't even keep on bloody topic...

Right.

uhh yeah.. okay gg nub.

n00b.

I already praise God, and I'm already watching the evaporation of my civil rights. And its not because of other Muslims, its because of the federal administration of where I live.

Psh.

I'm glad you expect no one to believe, because even used cooked numbers DESIGNED to maximum the alleged takeover of Sweden by Muslims, the world's most ideal conditions come WOEFULLY short of what you claim.

Such conviction, yet no substance...

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

Now you are changing your argument - thus it is not the same as the original.

No, I am rephrasing.

No. You changed it. Look at before and after, you clearly are talking about something different

Furthermore, your post doesn't make sense because you compare a religion to two other religion(Christianity and Jews), one idea that can be a religion or a philosophy depending how it is practiced (Buddhists), two races(Chinese and Japanese people), a nationality (Americans), and then two derogatory statements for white people(Hicks, White Trash).

Giving examples.

poor examples that draws a very bad comparison

Muslims are not a race. Any one of the people that are listed can be Muslims. I'm an American, but I'm also a Muslim.

Clearly. People aren't ethically born muslim, unlike Jews, but most people who are born into Islamic theocracies end up being Muslim. I mean, ya kinda have to.

Oh god...save me.

Links as to proof?

Okay. This says x3: http://www.brookings.edu/opini...ddleeast_taspinar.aspx

This says x3 http://www.cfr.org/publication/8252/europe.html

More info: http://www.geocities.com/richl...b/1st-world-islam.html

I read somewhere it was x4, but there is always fluxes in "statistics."
[/quote]

Okay that is fine. Doesn't bother me if Muslims are having babies - families generally produce children.

I hesitate to accept what you may say at face value.

This isn't face value. I'm stating the obvious, here. You think I'm being partisan?

Mainly Irrationale hatred towards Muslims and a fear. You should hang out with some if you can - they probably act like you.

Then if you know it why did you state that in 20 years the Muslims will be a majority?

Because they will?

At least some countries.

You changed your argument again. We go from Sweden to "Some countries now". WHICH countries? With the exception of the Balkans, which has had a high population of Muslims for a long time, which country will have MAJORITY 50%+ Muslims?

Geez. Remind me not to discuss with you again. It doesn't matter HOW old you are, you shift too much in a debate without any focus.

I never said ANYTHING or DENIED assimilation issues!

Exactly.

I called you out for B.S. saying that immigrants (which you accepted by my terms earlier to be all middle easterners and part of Sub Saharan Africa) are going to be MAJORITY in Sweden.

They are.

In terms of power, they will be the majority.

Sooo now in terms of POWER, they will be the majority? Shift again.

You should REALLLY stick to the subject and stop switching topics.

The topic was never switched.

You gotta be fvcking kidding me

Are you going to further tell me that the most common name in England for new baby boys is Mohammed (hint: its not)?

It's #2:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.../uk/article1890354.ece

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/s...s/babiesnames_boys.asp

so according to your article, 6% of new babies have the name Mohammed, whooo watch out! Teh muslims are coming!

It sounds like you have a problem with the (hopeful) creation of a European Muslim identity.

Yes.

Kthxbye Bigot. I'm being part of that American Muslim Identity, and I'll be glad to see it flourish -which it is - and that doesn't imply the "Downfall" of anything.

You just contradicted yourself. You can't say NO what I stated you say, and then say YES when I give you the direct quote of what you had said.

No....wait, yes...?

.....You can't decide if you contradicted yourself?

I already praise God, and I'm already watching the evaporation of my civil rights. And its not because of other Muslims, its because of the federal administration of where I live.

Psh

PSsSH what? I posted bullshite when it was recieved. I have a VERY valid point here.

Such conviction, yet no substance...

Honestly that sums up most of your posts...

Anyways don't see me discussion anything with you anymore. This is an exerscise in futility. As for this thread - I'm out. Had a lot of potential, totally wasted though.

 

[Noobtastic]

No. You changed it. Look at before and after, you clearly are talking about something different

Rephrased.

poor examples that draws a very bad comparison

Perfect examples.

Oh god...save me.

Allah?

Okay that is fine. Doesn't bother me if Muslims are having babies - families generally produce children.

Says you.

Mainly Irrationale hatred towards Muslims and a fear.

I'm not in the mood for bulls**t. This has nothing to do with hate or muslims, it has to do with what is happening and what isn't happening. This European consumption of Muslim radicals is something to be fearful of.

Pouting it off because people are so indulgent and can never comprehend a group of people
largely dominating most of the tyrannic and all-that-isn't-humane world is stupid.

I don't hate Islam or muslims. I don't hate anything really, I'm rather apathetic. I am merely stating the obvious, and if your religion prevents you from comprehending basic truths, well....I'm truly sorry.

You should hang out with some if you can - they probably act like you.

Who? I have plenty of muslim friends.

You changed your argument again.

No, my argument was general - I narrowed it.

We go from Sweden to "Some countries now".

Sweden was one country listed. Before you even joined this terrible excuse of a debate, I was discussing Europe and Western countries other than Sweden.

WHICH countries?

England, France, Netherlands, Holland, Sudan, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Spain, etc.

With the exception of the Balkans, which has had a high population of Muslims for a long time, which country will have MAJORITY 50%+ Muslims?

Most.

Geez. Remind me not to discuss with you again. It doesn't matter HOW old you are, you shift too much in a debate without any focus.

This isn't a debate. You can't argue facts no matter how skilled you are at semantics.

Sooo now in terms of POWER, they will be the majority? Shift again.

....your mom?

You gotta be fvcking kidding me

I'm a comedian.

so according to your article, 6% of new babies have the name Mohammed, whooo watch out! Teh muslims are coming!

Scoff away.

It worked with the Romans. Oh wait....

Kthxbye Bigot.

Insulted? Nah.

I'm being part of that American Muslim Identity, and I'll be glad to see it flourish -which it is - and that doesn't imply the "Downfall" of anything.

Good 4 u.

.....You can't decide if you contradicted yourself?

NoyesMaybe.

PSsSH what? I posted bullshite when it was recieved. I have a VERY valid point here.

What? The big bad American government is discriminating your religion? Half the world is dominated by Islamic theocracies, so you should have no problem finding another habitat.

Like I care.

Anyways don't see me discussion anything with you anymore. This is an exerscise in futility. As for this thread - I'm out. Had a lot of potential, totally wasted though.

At least I can spell.

pwnedzer3d1!.

 

[manowar821]

Eh, noobtastic is just a fascist, ignore him. Who wants sundays!?

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: manowar821
Eh, noobtastic is just a fascist, ignore him. Who wants sundays!?

Fascism

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

Originally posted by: manowar821
Eh, noobtastic is just a fascist, ignore him. Who wants sundays!?

Fascism

thanks for proving his point.

 

[cwjerome]

Islamism is basically the modern brand of radical Islam that I think we're talking about. But...

There is not much connection at all between fascism and Islamism... In Islamism there is no emphasis on a "corporate state," no emphasis on "the supreme leader," no emphasis on racial superiority, no glorification of youth and magical cleansing of the national spirit of subhuman elements, as well as no emphasis in war as an end in itself.

Fascism grew as a rejection of liberalism and the experience of World War I. Islamism was around much longer, particularly in Egypt. To understand the movement you should read Sayyid Qutb and follow the evolution of his movement following the Six Days War when Arab Nationalism demonstrated its inability to defeat Israel. OBL and al-Qaeda are just part of this evolutionary change in the nature of the larger struggle found within the Muslim world. So Bin Laden and other Islamists favor a return of the Caliph, but the Caliphate is much older than the concept of fascism and does not indicate traditional fascist tendencies.

Islamic scholar Khalid Duran once said of Islamism that it grew out of the totalitarianism of the 1930s, with movement leaders like Maulana Maududi incorporating the language of totalitariansm into their reactionary program to counter the ferment known as "de-Islamization"--definitely a liberalist project born of the Islamic world's encounter with the West and its ideals of Reformation.

The Islamist movement, orignating in Egypt and spreading outward across time and space, gravitated toward softer tropes associated with socialist and communist mass movements. Witness for example the terminology employed in even the title of Qutb's work SOCIAL JUSTICE IN ISLAM. This is not language found in the Koran. The Tunisian MTI/Al-NADHDA Islamist leader Rashid al-ghannoushi, who has an MA in philosophy, calls himself an Islamist and regards his national movement as part of a trend that would one day unify the entire world under a single banner of Islam.

Ghannoushi, in one interview, referred to this trend that is more commonly called "Islamic Resurgence" in American academic settings as a "Counter-Reformation." He also once said, "Islam is ancient but Islamism is recent." This parallelism speaks volumes.

If you study the tropes of Islamists around the world, you see clear evidence of their borrowing of the slogans of the world's other two totalitarian mass movements and syncretizing those terms with their more ancient religious ones to appeal to the masses. It's why Carl Jung in an interview in the early 1930s said of Hitler that the only leader comparable to him on a psychological and cultural level was Mohammed.

I do, however, have a lot of empathy for the many beleaguered Muslims around the world who would like to see an end to Islamism's program of "Counter-Reformation." Oppressed Muslims deserve a much better political economy than that. In any case, Islamofascism is a fairly imprecise term to describe a very real problem. But in today's terms, "fascist" is often used as a synonym for bully or somebody who forces their beliefs on others. In that vein, the term Islamofascism starts to become a little more accurately descriptive.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Narmer
Topic Title: What exactly is Islamofascism?

The great hope for Republican for four more years

Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear

 

[kage69]

I noticed Whoozerdaddy replied to Narmer with:

Have they been successful in their endeavours? Umm... 9/11, WTC bombings, USS Cole, African Embassy Bombngs, Marine Barracks in Lebonon, PanAm Lockerby flight, London subway bombings, train bombings in Spain, Bali nightclub bombings, etc...

I feel that list closely resembles what most Americans would initially think were they to ponder the thread's question, but I feel it's in our interests not to group all our adversaries into one group.
For instance - the barracks in Lebanon were attacked by Hezbollah, Tehran's own wittle French Foreign Legion. Our beef with Iran predates even the creation of the roots of al Qaeda, via the Afghan-Soviet War. The time frame disparity, as well as the difference in stated missions, makes me hesitant to consider them one and the same. Similarly, the PanAm Bombing over Lockerby Scotland was a product of Libyan tough-guy Mohammar Qadaffi flippin us the bird; as I recall we found out the same way as with the attack in Beirut, we intercepted the calls home reporting success. Qadaffi has always prefered hunting and women over world domination via religious indoctrination, or at least that's what my sources tell me. You think you can hang with bin Laden and al-Zawahri when you're towing a gaggle of North African fembots?

Bedoin please! They don't love them hoes.

Ok, so, he's a fascist ruling in a predominantly Islamic region, but is he an Islamofascist in the contemporary post-9/11 sense? His recent history of cooperation makes me think otherwise. I'm not saying he's a swell guy, I just think he's a different bird than the one we ought to be hunting (you know, like that other guy...), just as I'm not saying Hezbollah isn't a cause of concern. On the contrary, I think Hezbollah could be a real problem in the future, happily stepping outside it's normal operating area.



If anything, it's important for posterity's sake to note the distinctions involved I suppose. Please no one take any of this to mean I'm somehow questioning the existence of real Islamofascist threats like Osama bin Laden; to the best of my knowledge the rest of the attacks on the afore mentioned list were committed by AQ or AQ affiliates.