Let's Define Fascism
Looking it up on line, we get a myriad of definitions:
- system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism.
- A social and political ideology with the primary guiding principle that the state or nation is the highest priority, rather than personal or individual freedoms.
- a totalitarian political system led by a single dictator who allows no opposition, promoting an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
Now let's read Saturday's Sun Times:
- Islamic Society of North America's newly elected president, Ingrid Mattson, said Friday she objects to President Bush's use of the term "Islamic fascism" when describing the enemy in the global war on terrorism.
Well, Let's see Ms. Mattson - "system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control." That'd cover most of the Middle East and even large swaths of mosques across the world. "Usually headed by a dictator." Again, most of the arabic world. "a policy of belligerent nationalism." Anyone read the speeches coming out of Iran lately? We have. "The state or nation is the highest priority, rather than personal or individual freedoms." We think we can safely add religion (the islamic one) to that list. "...allows no opposition, promoting an aggressive nationalism and often racism."
Golly, looks like Bush got this one right. And not just right, but dead on right. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it's probably fascism.
Golly, looks like Bush got this one right. And not just right, but dead on right. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it's probably fascism.
posted by SCC at 6:00 AM
17 Comments:
Why must you contine to bestow your hatred towards Allah and spew the voice of prejudice ?
Check out the book Londonistan By Melaine Phillips.
With the exception of the Irish Catholic/Protestant problems that have just about vanished in Ireland, when was the last time you heard of Baptist fasciists or Catholic terrorists...most Christian religions can get their point accross without blowing up planes, stores, restaurants, etc., and the terrorist actions of killing innocent people (both their own people and their intended target). C'mon, Ingrid and all her followers should get with the program. The Muslims are by far a scary group of people...who do you trust???
What part of they want to kill ALL Infidels, don't you understand?
INFIDEL= NON-BELIEVER [in Muslim Religion-Islam] -period.
WAKE UP !
And don't forget to keep voting for those Democrats (even though they "support the troops"...yeah, right!).
So let me get this straight. Facsim and Neo-leftwing-American Hating Democtatics are about neck-in-neck.
Fat Democrats like Tedward K. who can't keep a car on top of the bridge is going to tell us how to live our lives. Only when murder and rape become the norm.
Hey 9:00:37
FUCK YOU AND FUCK YOUR ALLAH.
Three cheers for the 'Religion of Peace'.
who cares about the middle east - let's cut the umbilical cord to Israel
Islamo-fascism?
by Patrick J. Buchanan - September 1, 2006
“President Likens Dewey to Hitler as Fascist Tool.”
So ran the New York Times headline on Oct. 26, 1948, after what Dewey biographer Richard Norton Smith called a “particularly vitriolic attack in Chicago” by Harry Truman.
What brings this to mind is President Bush’s assertion that we are “at war with Islamic fascism” and “Islamo-fascism.”
After the transatlantic bomb plot was smashed, Bush said the plotters “try to spread their jihadist message I call – it’s totalitarian in nature, Islamic radicalism – Islamic fascism; they try to spread it, as well, by taking the attack to those of us who love freedom.”
What is wrong with the term Islamo-fascism?
First, there is no consensus as to what “fascism” even means. Orwell said when someone calls Smith a fascist, what he means is “I hate Smith. ” By calling Smith a fascist, you force Smith to deny he’s a sympathizer of Hitler and Mussolini.
As a concept, writes Arnold Beichman of the Hoover Institution, “fascism … has no intellectual basis at all nor did its founders even pretend to have any. Hitler’s ravings in ‘Mein Kampf’ … Mussolini’s boastful balcony speeches, all of these can be described, in the words of Roger Scruton, as an ‘amalgam of disparate conceptions.’”
Richard Pipes considers Stalinism and Hilterism to be siblings of the same birth mother: “Bolshevism and fascism were heresies of socialism.”
Since the 1930s, “fascist” has been a term of hate and abuse used by the left against the right, as in the Harry Truman campaign. In 1964, Martin Luther King Jr. claimed to see in the Goldwater campaign “dangerous signs of Hitlerism.” Twin the words “Reagan, fascism” in Google and 1,800,000 references pop up.
Unsurprisingly, it is neoconservatives, whose roots are in the Trotskyist-social Democratic left, who are promoting use of the term. Their goal is to have Bush stuff al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran into the same “Islamo-fascist” kill box, then let Strategic Air Command do the rest.
But the term represents the same lazy, shallow thinking that got us into Iraq, where Americans were persuaded that by dumping over Saddam, we were avenging 9/11.
But Saddam was about as devout a practitioner of Islam as his hero Stalin was of the Russian Orthodox faith. Saddam was into booze, mistresses, movies, monuments, palaces and dynasty. Bin Laden loathed him and volunteered to fight him in 1991, if Saudi Arabia would only not bring the Americans in to do the fighting Islamic warriors ought to be doing themselves.
And whatever “Islamo-fascism” means, Syria surely is not it. It is a secular dictatorship Bush I bribed into becoming an ally in the Gulf War. The Muslim Brotherhood is outlawed in Syria. In 1982, Hafez al-Assad perpetrated a massacre of the Brotherhood in the city of Hama that was awesome in its magnitude and horror.
As with Gadhafi, whom Bush let out of the penalty box after he agreed to pay $10 million to the family of each victim of Pan Am 103 and give up his nuclear program, America can deal with Syria as Israel did after the Yom Kippur War – for an armistice on the Golan that has stuck, as both sides have kept the deal.
America faces a variety of adversaries, enemies and evils. But the Bombs-Away Caucus, as Iraq and Lebanon reveal, does not always have the right formula. Al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran all present separate challenges calling forth different responses.
Al-Qaida appears to exist for one purpose: Plot and perpetrate mass murder to terrorize Americans and Europeans into getting out of the Islamic world. Contrary to what Bush believes, the 9/11 killers and London and Madrid bombers were not out to repeal the Bill of Rights, if any ever read it. They are out to kill us, and we have to get them first.
Hamas and Hezbollah have used terrorism, but, like Begin’s Irgun and Mandela’s ANC, they have social and political agendas that require state power to implement. And once a guerrilla-terrorist movement takes over a state, it acquires state assets and interests that are then vulnerable to U.S. military and economic power.
Why did the ayatollah let the American hostages go as Reagan raised his right hand to take the oath of office? Why did Syria not rush to the rescue of Hezbollah? What did Ahmadinejad not rocket Tel Aviv in solidarity with his embattled allies in Lebanon? Res ipse loquitor. The thing speaks for itself. They don’t want war with Israel, and they don’t want war with the United States.
“Islamo-fascism” should be jettisoned from Bush’s vocabulary. It yokes the faith of a billion people with an odious ideology. Imagine how Christians would have reacted, had FDR taken to declaring Franco’s Spain and Mussolini’s Italy “Christo-fascist.”
If Bush does not want a war of civilizations, he will drop these propaganda terms that are designed to inflame passions rather than inform the public of the nature of the war we are in, and the war we are not in.
SOURCE: Creators Syndicate
Iraqis are fighting for a Muslim government, as they are militant Islamists, no doubt. THere are fighters there who hate America, the secualr west, and Israel, no doubt, again. But what should we do about it, that is the important question. Does anyone really believe that any great percentage of our enemies are 'pooling' there and nowhere else? I used to believe that but no longer. We'd have to attack Syria, Pakistan, Jordan, Iran to kill even a decent amount of our enemies. If we killed every human in Iraq we'd probably have gotten 2% of our enemies. So is it worth it? I simply do not believe that we are sweeping all our enemies into Iraq and effeciently killing them. No way ...no way. But then why are we there? A simple question demends a simple answer ... so the answer is that we are there because we were threatened by Sadam .... yes, we feared he would give WMD's to terrorists who would then attack us. That's a valid argument on it's face, and that's fine. (By the way this does not meet criteria of the Catholic doctrine of a just war- thus the Pope's condemnation of the war) But I could still be persuaded to ignore Catholic Doctrine if it is in our country's best interest ... My problem arises when I study American history, and what our founding fathers said, namely, that we should have no passionate alliance to any other nation (George Washinton's farewell address). It seems our founding fathers were very well read regarding history, philophy, and politics. These were truly great men ... not only smart and tough, but, more importantly wise. We are now drawn into wars due to our passionate alliances. I'd also like to add that the more we export America's industrial base, the more we will be forced to rely on other countries, and that is very dangerous. I am no pacifist, but I realize, as did our founding fathers that war is bad, it is to be avoided, not at all costs, of course, but it depletes our "best and our brightest," and it depletes our "treasure." We can't fight an eternal war, it will devastate our nation.
Those that feel we should be fighting in Iraq believe we have no other choice because we have enemies who are on the verge of attacking us and we have to get them before they get us. Well this is a different type of war as we all know. These are groups and not governments that threaten us, it's a major difference from what we are used to. They wish us harm because they think Allah should define government, they hate our secualrism and they beleive government should be based on the Koran. We obviously disagree. But they also hate us because we unconditionally support Isreal and also because we are on their land. Does anyone know any other reasons why they hate us? So I propose, simply, that we can stop supporting Israel unconditonally and we get off their land. We don't need Isreal for anything and we don't need to be on their land. We don't need to fight endless wars for a foreign nation and we don't need to be on their land, it does not serve America's best interest. A wise American leader would garner tremdous support for war should it become necessary, if these (2) reasons are eliminated. Now you read a paper like "A Clean Break" and you realize that Israel is sticking a knife in our back. The Israeli's are using us and upper level policy-making American politicians suffer, to put it lightly, from a conflict of interest. Bush, I sincerely believe, has America's best interests at heart, but he is wrong. The democrats are dangerous, but the neocon republicans are two-faced and many America's do not have a grasp of what is going on. Americans need to turn off the T.V. and start educating themselves in some aggressive, real sense.
So every Arab is an Islamo-fascist, huh??
Hamas & Hezbollah hate Israel - NOT the United States ... Hezbollah did attack the marine Barracks in the early 1980's because we were on their and ...yes they did ... but we WERE on THEIR land
AL QUEDA hates the United States ... not Israel …
Hezbollah and Hamas will NOT let Al Queda set up shot in neither Lebanon nor Palestine ... their objectives are different and they are NOT NOT NOT on the same team
So there it is ... some are enemies of Israel ... some are enemies of the U.S.
GLOBAL war on terrorism ?… talking about drinking the kool-aid … SCC you still have the red ring around your lips … this war is NOT global unless we make it so … but that is what the Neo-cons wants us to believe …
True Judaism opposes Zionism … they are incompatible
let Israel be fuckups if they want but WE, the UNITED STATES are supplying those spies (Israeli's)with weapons to attack Lebanon ... yes they have spied on the U.S. time and time again … will you now edit this due to anti-semitism ?
Hezzbollah & Hamas are the enemies of Israel … not the U.S.
We already have our enemies … we don’t need any imaginary ones
Signed,
A non-moron copper who knows a little more than most
Check out the book Londonistan By Melaine Phillips.
Also check out the book Neo-Conned ... by Patrick J. Buchanan
Boy this used to be a cop site ...
SCC it seems you are biting off a bit more than you can chew with the sarcasm relating to the topic posted. You feel all coppers are on the same page? Or is this becoming your personal website espousing your personal views? If so I will tune out shortly.
A story from a U.S. Soldier somewhere in Afghanistan
"So we are up in the mountains at about 0100 hrs looking for a bad guy that we thought was in the area. Here are ten of us, pitch black, crystal clear night, about 25 degrees. We know there are bad guys in the area; a few sh=
ots have been fired but no big deal. We decide that we need air cover and the only thing in the area is a solo B-1 bomber.
He flies around at about
20,000 feet and tells us there is nothing in the area. He then asks if we would like a low level show of force. Stupid question. Of course we tell him yes.
The controller who is attached to the team then is heard talking to the pilot.
Pilot asks if we want it subsonic or supersonic. Very stupid question. Pilot advises he is twenty miles out and stand by.
The controller gets us all sitting down in a line and points out the proper location. You have to picture this. Pitch black, ten killers sitting down, dead quiet and overlooking this about 30 mile long valley. All of a sudden, way out (below our level) you see a set of four 200' white flames coming at us.
The controller says, "Ah-- guys-- you might want to plug your ears".=
Faster than you can think a B-1, supersonic, 1000' over our heads, blasts the sound barrier and it feels like God just hit you in the head with a hammer". He then stands it straight up with 4 white trails of flame coming out and=
disappears."
Cost of gas for that: Probably $50,000
Hearing damage: For certain=20
Bunch of Taliban thinking twice about shooting at us: Priceless
Have a nice day!
It's always been our website. Go read it from the beginning. We have opinions on everything, including the world at large. You generalization of "do we think all coppers feel the same way" is insulting to us and other cops - we're a force of some 10,000 plus. Of course we're going to have differences - but many of us are on the same page in regard to world views, local issues, and political leanings.
As to the closet anti-Israel poster, your comment is littered with so many errors of fact and figure as to be nonsensical - but we posted it anyway, more for shits and giggles than anything else. Go crawl back under your rock now with your other tiny brained friends and bemoan how "Joooooos" run the world and "Joooooos" dictate US policy and "Joooooos" are keeping you down.
Considering the Democrats almost staunch stance of appeasement, who would we consider the "Neville Chamberlain" of of the Left? Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Schumer, Kennedy,... oh nevermind. I could type every Democtatic congressmans name and still not cover them all.
<< Home