Eleven Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 From Merriam-Webster: Full Definition of fascism 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 instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge> While I will agree that Muslim fascism differs from "classical" fascism in the sense that the bonds to the currently-defined map (and thus what we think of as "nations") are weak, Muslim fascism substitutes Islam (and Sunni/Shiite) for "Germany" or "France" or whatever. Clearly the other elements are there in spades. As for Trump: whatever he's selling, it isn't fascism. Here is a pretty even-handed discussion of no-go zones: http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/02/muslim-no-go-zones-in-europe/ Fair point on substituting religion for nationality w/r/t fascism. Trump's gonna build a wall, and Mexico is going to pay for it. Nah, doesn't sound fascist at all. Not that I think he actually intends to do this for one minute--I don't. But look at the people whom he whips into a frenzy. Look at their views. Yes, they are fascists. As for Europe, give this a gander. Warning, not safe for work language abounds. And their thoughts are not safe for lunch. http://www.reddit.com/r/european Eye for an eye is not how these things work. Muslims turning inward with violence doesn't solve this, our people's opinions on them. In fact, it probably makes it worse. That's how it works when someone writes a supposedly offensive novel, though, right? Speaking of head in the sand... And seriously, a Daily Caller opinion piece as an even-handed discussion? You're so far off the tracks you don't even know tracks were ever there. Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 That's how it works when someone writes a supposedly offensive novel, though, right? Sorry, you lost me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thwomp! Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 Maybe so. Maybe when I start seeing imams issue fatwas calling for the deaths of the leaders of these groups on account of their crimes against Islam, I'll feel differently. I always love this argument and double standard. Why aren't Christian religious leaders criticized for not waging holy war against those that belong to their religion and perpetrate acts of terrorism and murder? Essentially, there are nuts in every group. It doesn't mean the rest of the group is complicit in the nut's actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 As for Europe, give this a gander. Warning, not safe for work language abounds. And their thoughts are not safe for lunch. http://www.reddit.com/r/european Uh....http://gfycat.com/BrilliantAridCygnet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 Sorry, you lost me You're probably too young for his reference. Look up salman Rushdie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 So he wrote a novel with an alternate history of Muhammed's action and had a picture of him, so they attempted to kill him. He's a British Muslim, and they looked like terrible people for their responses. Is that correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 Sorry, you lost me Salman Rushdie wrote a novel, The Satanic Verses, which resulted in numerous imams calling for his death. A Danish cartoonist depicted Mohammed, which resulted in numerous imams calling for his death (this is distinct from the Charlie Hebdo situation). A couple of terrorists bring shame upon the whole religion and violate every tenet in it by committing mass murders, and the imams do nothing except say "it's just a tiny fraction of a percent, don't blame the whole religion!" I always love this argument and double standard. Why aren't Christian religious leaders criticized for not waging holy war against those that belong to their religion and perpetrate acts of terrorism and murder? Essentially, there are nuts in every group. It doesn't mean the rest of the group is complicit in the nut's actions. Huh? Gonna need an example on this one, unless you're going back to the days of forced conversions in South America, in which case I am fully critical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 Salman Rushdie wrote a novel, The Satanic Verses, which resulted in numerous imams calling for his death. A Danish cartoonist depicted Mohammed, which resulted in numerous imams calling for his death (this is distinct from the Charlie Hebdo situation). A couple of terrorists bring shame upon the whole religion and violate every tenet in it by committing mass murders, and the imams do nothing except say "it's just a tiny fraction of a percent, don't blame the whole religion!" So what you're saying is, the imam should call for the death of terrorists? That sub-reddit really, really, reaaaalllllyyyyyy is NSFW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 So what you're saying is, the imam should call for the death of terrorists? It would be a lot easier for me to believe that the religion is indeed a peaceful one if its leaders enforced their own rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 Huh? Gonna need an example on this one, unless you're going back to the days of forced conversions in South America, in which case I am fully critical. I believe he's referring to the Crusades Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 It would be a lot easier for me to believe that the religion is indeed a peaceful one if its leaders enforced their own rules. Um, :blink: . More peaceful, by ordering murders,... hmmm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 Speaking of head in the sand... And seriously, a Daily Caller opinion piece as an even-handed discussion? You're so far off the tracks you don't even know tracks were ever there. Did you read it? Did you bother to figure anything out about the writer? Or did you just react with intellectual snobbery because it wasn't from the NYT or WP? Trump's gonna build a wall, and Mexico is going to pay for it. Nah, doesn't sound fascist at all. Not that I think he actually intends to do this for one minute--I don't. But look at the people whom he whips into a frenzy. Look at their views. Yes, they are fascists. As for Europe, give this a gander. Warning, not safe for work language abounds. And their thoughts are not safe for lunch. http://www.reddit.com/r/european That's how it works when someone writes a supposedly offensive novel, though, right? I had dinner last weekend with a Trump supporter. He's not a fascist. More broadly, I think Trump is whipping up populist-style discontent among those who have been lied to and economically left behind. They are PO'd, to be sure, and they aren't particularly conservative or capitalist in philosophy, but I don't see fascism. As for the return of skinheads and other ultranationalists in Europe -- this is regrettable, and well of a piece with European history, but also not fascist. No one is talking about abandoning democracy or crushing dissent. Sorry, you lost me I think he was talking about Salman Rushdie and the bounty put on his head by Muslim religious leaders for the sin of defaming Islam. I always love this argument and double standard. Why aren't Christian religious leaders criticized for not waging holy war against those that belong to their religion and perpetrate acts of terrorism and murder? Essentially, there are nuts in every group. It doesn't mean the rest of the group is complicit in the nut's actions. Which Christian terrorists, specifically? In particular: which Christians are committing acts of mass murder in the name of Christianity? NB that when a Christian knocks over a liquor store and shoots someone in the process, that isn't terrorism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 I believe he's referring to the Crusades Plenty to criticize there, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 It would be a lot easier for me to believe that the religion is indeed a peaceful one if its leaders enforced their own rules. I think, in either case, they shouldn't be calling for the death of anyone. The only reason they are in one case and not in another is to retain power, and probably their lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 Um, :blink: . More peaceful, by ordering murders,... hmmm. More like a death penalty than murders. All I'm really trying to get to is that the religious leaders do nothing to show me they're peaceful; they just tell me they're peaceful and want me to accept that. It's time to see some proof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pastajoe Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 The largest number by far of people killed by ISIS are Muslims. Ted Cruz is now calling for new powers "for law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized." No fascism going on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 (edited) I had dinner last weekend with a Trump supporter. He's not a fascist. As for the return of skinheads and other ultranationalists in Europe -- this is regrettable, and well of a piece with European history, but also not fascist. No one is talking about abandoning democracy or crushing dissent. 1. Didn't say they all were fascists. 2. This is #23 in the subreddit that I pointed out to you: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/03/its-time-for-the-governments-of-europe-to-fall EDIT: Here's a quote: "It is time to sweep them out. All of them: the multiculturalists, the cultural relativists, the internationalists, the levellers, the elites who have brought this death and destruction upon Brussels today, and Paris yesterday, and the rest of Europe tomorrow. " Edited March 22, 2016 by Eleven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 (edited) Did you read it? Did you bother to figure anything out about the writer? Or did you just react with intellectual snobbery because it wasn't from the NYT or WP? I definitely reject any and all information that doesn't come from the NYT or WP. In fact, I hope to one day ascend to the presidency and outlaw all other media outlets. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I personally am waiting for President Romney to address the situation before forming an opinion. He is president, right? After all, the two clearly superior presidential election polls told me he would be. Edited March 22, 2016 by TrueBlueGED Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 1. Didn't say they all were fascists. 2. This is #23 in the subreddit that I pointed out to you: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/03/its-time-for-the-governments-of-europe-to-fall EDIT: Here's a quote: "It is time to sweep them out. All of them: the multiculturalists, the cultural relativists, the internationalists, the levellers, the elites who have brought this death and destruction upon Brussels today, and Paris yesterday, and the rest of Europe tomorrow. " Time-honored rhetoric since propaganda was recognized as a powerful tool. Sounds like the wing-nut rhetoric I hear in this country as well. Plain fact is, no government or government leaders EVER, as in SINCE THE WORLD BEGAN, have been able to "stop terrorism." You can thwart an attack here and there but it can never be stopped. The only way it can be stopped is for people not to have a reason to engage in it. Good luck with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 Time-honored rhetoric since propaganda was recognized as a powerful tool. Sounds like the wing-nut rhetoric I hear in this country as well. Plain fact is, no government or government leaders EVER, as in SINCE THE WORLD BEGAN, have been able to "stop terrorism." You can thwart an attack here and there but it can never be stopped. The only way it can be stopped is for people not to have a reason to engage in it. Good luck with that. I agree that it can't be stopped, but it can be combatted to the point where it approaches de minimis effect in terms of casualties. This has happened in Israel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 I agree that it can't be stopped, but it can be combatted to the point where it approaches de minimis effect in terms of casualties. This has happened in Israel. What constitutes minimizing? I've read statistics compiled by Israel that indicate 2015 was their deadliest year for terrorism since 2008. We've thwarted numerous attempts in the US since 9/11. If a plan should succeed after 15 years, have we failed at minimizing terrorist attacks on our soil? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 I agree that it can't be stopped, but it can be combatted to the point where it approaches de minimis effect in terms of casualties. This has happened in Israel. This is where the U.S. is, no? Hats off to W. and Barry? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 This is where the U.S. is, no? Hats off to W. and Barry? Yes, and both deserve credit for this. But it doesn't mean the job is done or that vigilance is no longer needed. It's also worth noting that the problem is several orders of magnitude greater in Europe than it is here due to much greater proportions of Muslim immigrants and lesser assimilation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewookie1 Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 EDIT: Here's a quote: "It is time to sweep them out. All of them: the multiculturalists, the cultural relativists, the internationalists, the levellers, the elites who have brought this death and destruction upon Brussels today, and Paris yesterday, and the rest of Europe tomorrow. " I actually sort of agree with the quote to be honest. The bolded are part of the problem in the West. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thwomp! Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 Thanks for all the snark about the crusades. Yes that was bad but I'm talking about recent and modern times. Abortion doctors and clinic mass shootings. One very recent in Colorado, with a stated Christian motive. Perceived liberal churches targeted such as Charleston, SC and Knoxville Tennessee. The KKK has operated in America for a very long time under a Christian banner, yet all Christians are not blamed for the KKK's actions. That is the equivalent to the extreme Muslim religious element. My question is why are these actions talked about differently and why the blame put on an entire religion? Why the double standard? We're not and never have dropped bombs on Christians and passed/proposed laws against Christians because of the actions of Christian extremists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.