Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week
 

So who has heard of this?

From reading about it, it seems to have a decent base but strays ways too much into an anti-Islamic catch phrase, republican influenced of course.

http://www.terrorismawareness.org/is...wareness-week/

Editoral - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/op...ml?ref=opinion

The political density of that single statement just made my head explode.

Uh-oh. Cue the "tens of thousands of camouflaged highly trained elite Islamic sniper ninja terrorist sleeper cells disguised as everyday Americans are living in hidden underground bunkers with stolen suitcase nukes packed in a mixture anthrax and ricin targeted at Christian children living in middle class suburbs are just waiting for more encouragement from the communist/fascist/atheist left before they take over the world by out breeding us" posts.

that's the mexicans dude.

Pssh, Mexicans are nothing compared to the Indians (the ones from India).

But they're not a threat until they grow gills.

Happy Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week!

BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!

when i grow up and shed my soul, i'm gonna be a conservative republican.

lol rex

Or you could blow yourself and 60 others up and take your soul to heaven where you could share it with 100 virgins, if they have any in heaven. :D

it's actually 72 virgins. or is it crystal raisins? i forget.

I think it was versions, the part they have not told those idiots is that they are 72 virgin sheep. :D

"Osama, you misunderstood Me; what I said to you was seventy-two Virginians." [/voice of God]

Kits, is that a cleaned-up depiction of the famous Pakistani Rage Boy?

Jihad Watch will do about as well as any other site. Lots of hits googling "Rage Boy."

They were encouraging some Photoshop competition -- some different angles.

You know, the Nazis had to set up a fearsome and 'deadly' opponent in order to get most of Germany to follow along... and how many Jews were burnt?

And now America gives us the Jihadist. A caricature that goes ...

Cool! Who is getting the contract for the ovens? I am sure the US public would support that. {talk about a make believe notion}

CLASSIC

http://www.snappedshot.com/archives/...y-Roundup.html

For the record, if you want a sure way to get people to stop listening to you, compare someone to hitler or the nazis.

That being said, I think (hope) the point he's making is this is just another 'them.' In this century alone it's been the Germans and Japanese, the Communists, or the terrorists. They're always somehow 'shadowy and lurk among us' and there's always a 'constant threat of ending civilization as we know it.' It's all crap-spewing, and the saddest thing of all is that the boy crieds wolf. What little danger IS there is not corrected in any worthwhile fashion, it's beaten with a hammer.

Goodwin's law originally stated that as a thread grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning Hitler or Nazis approaches one.
This has drifted to be that in any thread, as soon as someone says "that's what the Nazis/Hitler would do/say" that person automatically loses the argument and the thread ends.
HOWEVER! There is also Quirk's exception, which states that Hitler and Nazism may be mentioned without activating Goodwin's law, if it is actually relevant to the topic.

I think in this thread, it was relevant. Bandito was talking about the desire for an external enemy. Consider the following quote:
Islam is the new communism.

Halliburton. duh.

I don't buy it man. After our, and many other countries, sacrifices during WW2, to compare our current government with that of the Nazi's because you hate Bush or whatever the fuck is pissing you off is fucking stupid and you ought to be stoned to death.

:lol: that last :lol: comment is something :lol: a nazi would say :lol:

That was a joke.

Serious reply:
True, there are vast differences between Hitler and Bush, between the Nazis and the Republicans.
But I also think it is true that lots of governments (Australia's current PM Howard as well as Bush, for example) like to play on fear of an external threat to boost their popularity, and aren't above twisting the facts to suit their purposes.
Since this is widespread, we might argue that Quirk's exception doesn't apply here and we should invoke Goodwin's law. But the Nazis were particularly explicit in this strategy, and so I still think this is a legitimate mention.
This is not to say that the Bush administration is in every respect like the Nazis.

Stoned to death? I've tried, but I kept running out.

It wasn't a comparison of Hitler-Bush. Who wants to do that again? Go through all that guff.

It was that external, ultra-demonic enemy, used against a populace to inspire nationalism and fervour, allowing the governing body to do what they want.

Islam is the new Communism - damn right. Hell, I'd go so far as to say Islam is the new war on drugs.

Does Islam deserve it? I don't think so. No more than the Jews during WWII. Does any People deserve it?

Well said Bandito.

It has very little to do with Islam. It has to do with a minority of radical elements who have co-opted the cause and a majority who are afraid to speak up. There is no way you can compare the democracy of today to the Nazi's and Facists of yesteryear. It is like people who believe in Bible code. Parallels can be drawn from many situations.

I think the comparison was between the democracy of today, and the democracy of Pre-WWII Germany.

Which lead to the rise of Facism and Nazism? No deal. I don't buy the comparison that our current democracy is in someway akin to what lead to the events in Germany and the rise of such evil.

Nah, people in the US would never support Hilteresque practices.

Neither would have the pre-war Germans.

Americans aren't some sort of super-race that can feel free to use the tactics of fear and nationalism and expect the fundamental goodness of our country to protect us from their ill effects.

I don't think they don't expect anything, nor do Americans think they are a "super-race". It is MHO that the "ill effects" are overblown.

Sorry, I can't see youtube propaganda at work.

yeah, that is a great example of the average american.:rolleyes:

hey but it feeds his propaganda, am I right?

kitsune is a bit left of center but history would show him to be a lot less prone to throwing propaganda about than a few others around here.

I still don't know what it was, can you tell me?

An interviewer (I'm guessing from a British comedy show) asking people what security measures they'd support against Muslims, from ID cards to badges to number tattoos to incarceration until the end of the war.

Sounds pretty funny. I will have to check it out when I get home. Reminds me of stuff that Carlos Mencia does with "beaners!". The guy is a hoot.

But not less prone to posting things to stir up shit. ;)

No, this heavily edited comedy video is not representative of the average American, nor should it be taken as such. In my place of work I'd say only 20% of people I know support these kinds of ideas.

20%!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!! :sweat: One of my jobs is on a Military Post. I could find maybe 1% of the people who think that way.

In a building where several thousand IT workers feel as if they are under constant threat of job loss due to outsourcing, a lot of interesting hate directed at foreigners develops when you dump in more than 1,000 H1Bs from other countries who follow different beliefs and barely speak English. Force them to interact under harsh deadlines, and it often gets ugly. In my old group of 12, there were three people who were very vocal about their desire for laws that would ship off every single non-citizen and lock up every Muslim for the security of our country. In my current group there are not as many who voice those opinions while on the job (less than five out of a room of 41), but some of the chatter at the bar suggests the ideas are just as strong and just as prevalent.

I don't talk politics over beer with co-workers, anymore. Ever.

That wasn't a British accent.

The Chasers are that same group that got in trouble for freely being allowed into the APEC secured zone in Australia, right?

I think what we tend to lose sight of is that initially the Nazi party was a minority of radical elements who co-opted a cause and led a majority who were afraid to speak up...

There's nothing that's simultaneously more chilling and entertaining than watching 'Triumph of the Will', most expressly the scene with over 100,000 'Road-workers' standing in formation with their shovels on their shoulders. These guys weren't the military, they were roadworkers. And in the film they espoused a certain nationalistic fervour that's (in retrospect quite camp) rather scary.

Sounds pretty harsh.

I thought the Hitler was tremendously popular right before and during the the beginning of the war?

Hitler brought the whole country out of one of the biggest depressions in history, and raised the standard of living of everyone that was "pure". Hitler was probably just as popular as FDR if not even more.

For the whole Jews part. From a civilian standpoint, they didn't know about the holocaust at the time or just chose to be ignorant, the Jews were probably treated in the same way as blacks were treated in the United States. The US was pretty anti-semitic at the time as well. I think it had to do more with the Nazi party hiding facts and the people too concerned about other interests to care about what was happening to them. That is the scariest part about any country, the people not even caring that they are being taken over from the inside.

Here is an article about why Hitler was so popular:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0703a.asp

Here is the discussion on the cellar:
http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=15017

By means of a remarkably big spliff.:joint:

You can't seriously tell me that Americans don't feel 'special' or 'superior' in majority. Look at any thread on illegal immigration and the whole thing will REEK of excessive nationalism. Any topic comparing the US to any other nation or group of people results in this display of flag waving and preaching.

Since WWII our government has been employing propaganda machines saying that effectively we are democracy, we are the perfected government and we must defend our freedom-democracy-liberty machine against the evil intentioned 'other.' The difference now is that the 'war information movies' don't have the 'office of war information' banner at the beginning. In fact, the videos and press that are shared now have been engineered to look like real news, trying to hide their propaganda.

Let's be clear: I'm not using 'propaganda' in the sense that it is exclusively produced by the US. Just about every country that has been involved in a modern war has used it to rally their people. This is mostly because people almost never react the way their leaders want if they are presented with all the information and given a while to decide. It's FAR more effective to create a black-and-white landscape.

The point I'm making is that you cannot refute the claim that Americans have been raised by birth to believe that we are THE beacon of democracy and enemies are all around us, who hate freedom. I think, in fact, that the 90s were the only decade in recent memory where there WASN'T a vast faceless enemy trying to destroy us... mostly because there was no group that could be made into it.

Also... how does it have nothing to do with Islam when the name we given to our enemy is 'The Islamo-fascists.' Why aren't they just fascists?

Well, despite what many think, the military is actually quite well informed (on the whole) of Muslims, Iraqis, Afghanis etc. This might have something to do with the fact that after a while, the brass finally figured out that you can't fight an insurgency if your soldiers think that all the civilians are bad guys. All that does is cause a bigger rift. There are pamphlets all over the place called campy things like 'Islam and You!'

Did you notice that in the 1990s there was a spate of movies on the theme of hostile Aliens attacking the Earth, and being repelled (mostly) by the US? Eg. Independence Day and Battlefield Earth. With no Earthly foe, Hollywood had to look upwards.
Meanwhile, their was a spike in nutty conspiracy theorists worried that the UN was going to attempt to take over the USA (and that civilian militias with assault rifles were gonna stop 'em!).
Some part of the American collective psyche has a strong urge to play the role of Defender of the Home Against the Foreign Foe. Partly it is economic - stimulating the arms industry. But I think it is mostly psychological. Through the history of the 20th century and a tide of movies with this theme, this is where a good many Americans see themselves. Take away the foreign foe ... and they suddenly don't have a place to be, a role to fill.
(emphasis: this is not true of all Americans. Just some, but they're enough to be influential.)

Also those comedians WERE the Chaser team, who did the stunt at the APEC meeting. And while I presume they had to interview hundreds of people to get those comments that went to air, and so those views are probably a tiny minority, nevertheless they still got those replies from some people. Strange how something can be funny and still very, very scary.

If I've known someone for a long time and even if I've been friends with them since childhood, if I find out that they...

• Support the war in Iraq
• Support the Patriot Act
• Aren't totally disgusted by George W. Bush or any member of his cabinet or the judges he's appointed
• Don't believe in global warming
• Read Alex Jones' websites
• Listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Dobbs, Coulter, Beck, O'Riely, Franken, etc.
• Support the drug war
• Support making abortion illegal
• Think "illegals" are the source of our problems.
• Think "Zionists" are the problem and not those who want them dead.
• etc.

I immediately cut off all ties and inform them in no uncertain terms that we are no longer friends and I want nothing to do with them. Also that they shouldn't breed so they don't spread that stupidity.

wow, how's that working out for your political ambitions Radar?

Something I've been thinking about, recently -- why do these things almost always seem to go together? Why is there not more variation in this set of beliefs? (or is there and I'm simply falling prey to generalization?)

I regret to see that "think gays don't deserve equal rights" isnt on your list, radar.

i regret to see that anyone as generally well educated as Radar is has a list of one issue litmus tests that he will use to cut all contact with people. isolating yourself from those that disagree and surrounding yourself with a bunch of "me too's" is what leads our country further and further to the extremes. if you don't have any association with those who disagree it is easy to forget that they are real people who are generally good, fine, upstanding, intelligent people who just disagree with you on issues, and next thing you know they are the enemy.

It's on my list. It's under "etc"

Everyone has a list like this. I have one, but its pretty short: The moment I learn someone is racist, I pretty much cut all lines of communication with them. There's no reason to associate with them or try to come to terms when people are that hard set, although you can still understand their point of view and treat them like a human being. Why create more tension when your highly opposite view doesn't have much of a chance to change someone's mind? When neither side has anything to gain from the other, what's the point?

This reaction is the default for most people on their "hot" issues and those polarized issues vary from person to person. I guess if you're extremely passionate about some of these politics, the only possible outcome of discussion is one both parties should probably avoid. :yelsick:

What I find interesting about that list is that an anti-war stance is on the same list as an anti-Palestinian stance:


Though by no means universal, the tendency in my country is for those who were opposed to the war to be also sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, and perceive Israel's actions to be the main source of aggression in that region.

The Middle East conflict is viewed very differently in Britain, to the way it is viewed in the States. There are those who are absolutely on Israel's side, and those who are on Palestines, there are those who see blame on both sides. But the majority view, I think, is that whilst it is never acceptable to send suicide bombers onto schoolbuses, it is also never alright to inflict collective punishment, or illegally occupy another people's country. Israel is seen by most, I think, as an illegal occupier and a fairly brutal one at that.

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with promoting or supporting Zionism. Israel had nothing to do with starting this war. The United States has never fought a war for the benefit of Israel or Jews, but has for Muslims.

Israel is not illegally or legally occupying someone else's land. Each and every single square inch of land Israel has was obtained honestly either won in wars or given to them by the UK in 1948. All of Israel, Jordan, and the area held by the so-called Palestinian people, and parts of Egypt, and other countries was once Israel.

Israel has given food, shelter, clothing, and support to the so-called Palestinian people, and allows Muslim men (AND WOMEN) to live, work, vote, and hold political office in Israel. No Muslim nation allows Jews to do the same or allows even Muslim women to vote or hold political office. Israel has offered to help the Palestinian territory to become a recognized country as long as they stop murdering Jews.

Israel never uses force except in its own defense and is never interested in conquest. Israel is the ONLY free nation in the middle-east.

I'm not suggesting the war in Iraq and the Middle East situation are connected. I'm saying that the people who most commonly hold that view on the war also most commonly hold that view on Israel.


According to the United Nations, Israel is engaged in illegal occupation. This is a view shared by many Brits and indeed by many other Europeans.

I don't believe that is true. It may be true of Islamic theocratic nations, but not all Moslem nations are theocratic.

Puntive measures against a people are not an act of self defense. And placing settlements in occupied territories is absolutely an act of conquest and expansion.

but the UN is a failed little experiment, so who really cares?:stickpoke :bolt:

*bleh!*

I'm assuming it has to do with personal philosophy and how they view life. I have always found that people that think the same way as me in philosophy will usually have the same political views as me.

For example, Radar is someone who more or less believes in independence, personal responsibility, and absolute freedom, leading him to libertarianism and usually the views that go with it.

While Dana, quee, and I tend to have a philosophy that favors community building which will lead us more to leftist views.