Bush defies Congress, says he has right to change Homeland Security bills
- Thread starter rick_reno
- Start date
Sorry, I can't think of a single Christian who is poised to expand Christianity at the edge of the sword. Last time I looked, neither the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Pope of Rome, nor Billy Graham, were training young men to strap bombs on their bodies and blow up marketplaces full of innocents, nor to capture and behead journalists, nor, for that matter, to fly planes into buildings. Give me a blinkin' break ITEOTWAWKI. 
But you are right. We do tend to see the entire Middle East as a monolith of trouble. As part of the Antiochian jurisdiction of the OC, I know better, because our patriarch is in Damascus (and he's not training suicide bombers, either, just to clarify) and I well know that there are good and peaceful people of all descriptions there, as well as some real baddies.
The Islamo-fascists are those who wish to expand their political power, which, in their happy fantasy, will in fact coincide with the Wahhabist sect of Islam, to destroy the west, its institutions, its tolerance of religious diversity and areligiosity, its freedom, and its power. They are turbocharged on hate.
Springmom
But you are right. We do tend to see the entire Middle East as a monolith of trouble. As part of the Antiochian jurisdiction of the OC, I know better, because our patriarch is in Damascus (and he's not training suicide bombers, either, just to clarify) and I well know that there are good and peaceful people of all descriptions there, as well as some real baddies.
The Islamo-fascists are those who wish to expand their political power, which, in their happy fantasy, will in fact coincide with the Wahhabist sect of Islam, to destroy the west, its institutions, its tolerance of religious diversity and areligiosity, its freedom, and its power. They are turbocharged on hate.
Springmom
Oh all right....if we must.... 
This is quite true. And if it were to happen, it would constitute a significant change in the balance of power (such as it is these days) internationally. Even if the Caliphate did not extend to any part of the western hemisphere, it would create a huge problem for the U.S.
Hence (getting back on topic, see Bud, I'm working on it, LOL) Bush looks at the current instability and the potential outcomes of that instability, and does what most presidents have done during times of national crisis...clamps down on civil liberties thinking that in doing so, he is saving the Republic.
Perhaps he is. We'll know in about 200-300 years and at that point, if we're all still here on line, we can Monday morning quarterback it. Right now, however, I look at this and it gives me the willies, because I see us giving up the essence of who we are....a free society...to become a safe society. And that is a false hope. Once we give up our freedom, we will have the devil's own time getting it back; not only because it is not in the nature of the executive branch to willingly cede power once it has it, but also because once precedents are set they are set and they will be called upon again at a later date by a future executive who will chip away futher at our freedom. I do not wish to be a safe subject. I would rather be a free citizen, even with danger.
What I wouldn't give for one real honest-to-pete constitutionalist in the presidential election for 2008....
Springmom
This is quite true. And if it were to happen, it would constitute a significant change in the balance of power (such as it is these days) internationally. Even if the Caliphate did not extend to any part of the western hemisphere, it would create a huge problem for the U.S.
Hence (getting back on topic, see Bud, I'm working on it, LOL) Bush looks at the current instability and the potential outcomes of that instability, and does what most presidents have done during times of national crisis...clamps down on civil liberties thinking that in doing so, he is saving the Republic.
Perhaps he is. We'll know in about 200-300 years and at that point, if we're all still here on line, we can Monday morning quarterback it. Right now, however, I look at this and it gives me the willies, because I see us giving up the essence of who we are....a free society...to become a safe society. And that is a false hope. Once we give up our freedom, we will have the devil's own time getting it back; not only because it is not in the nature of the executive branch to willingly cede power once it has it, but also because once precedents are set they are set and they will be called upon again at a later date by a future executive who will chip away futher at our freedom. I do not wish to be a safe subject. I would rather be a free citizen, even with danger.
What I wouldn't give for one real honest-to-pete constitutionalist in the presidential election for 2008....
Springmom
ITEOTWAWKI
Moderator
I believe he's referring to the word or phrase "Islamo-Fascist".
Islamo-fascist, Bud. While it's true that a segment of fanatics could be called fascists, the word(s) Islamo-fascist implies all Muslems are fascist. It basically paints all Muslims with the same brush. Like calling all white people racist because of the actions of a few. Just my .02
“Islamic fascist”—or “Islamofascist” as it’s popularly spelled on the Internet—is the latest explosive in the right’s semantic arsenal. It’s explosive because it instantly brings to mind the 20th century’s greatest horror, the Holocaust, because it offends the sensibilities of millions of people like Ahmed who hold Islam sacred, and because it infuriates people who believe that the Middle East conflict can be resolved at least partially through talking. It has been in wide use for about a year, mostly by hawkish conservatives who feel that five years of “war on terror” rhetoric has not gone far enough to identify who the enemy is—that is, terrorists who are Muslim—or to describe the radical Islamic movement in the Middle East as a global threat to a democratic way of life. To compare today’s terrorists to the last century’s fascists “gets at the incredibly aggressive nature of the conflict, the craziness of it,” explains William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard. “You imply that these are not rationally calculating people in the way that we have become accustomed to.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14319984/site/newsweek/
badbob
“Islamic fascist”—or “Islamofascist” as it’s popularly spelled on the Internet—is the latest explosive in the right’s semantic arsenal. It’s explosive because it instantly brings to mind the 20th century’s greatest horror, the Holocaust, because it offends the sensibilities of millions of people like Ahmed who hold Islam sacred, and because it infuriates people who believe that the Middle East conflict can be resolved at least partially through talking. It has been in wide use for about a year, mostly by hawkish conservatives who feel that five years of “war on terror” rhetoric has not gone far enough to identify who the enemy is—that is, terrorists who are Muslim—or to describe the radical Islamic movement in the Middle East as a global threat to a democratic way of life. To compare today’s terrorists to the last century’s fascists “gets at the incredibly aggressive nature of the conflict, the craziness of it,” explains William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard. “You imply that these are not rationally calculating people in the way that we have become accustomed to.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14319984/site/newsweek/
badbob
Oh, okay. I actually never interpreted the term quite that way. I thought of it as the fascist arm of Islam. As in Islamic fascist. I don't understand the broad brush use. How does that definition come out of it? I do think that the use of the word "fascist" is probably misused in this context, but it is typical these days to hear a word misused simply for the effect it's use gives. That's what I thought was happening here. You can say Bapto-fascist and it's connotation will be something bad because of the use of fascist. But not the whole Baptist sect, if you will, just the fascist arm. 
I most certainly was not painting all Muslims as fascists. I was very carefully delineating those who wish conquest of the west versus those who just want to live in peace like the rest of us. Go back and re-read what I wrote, badbob.
However, if you'd like, how about the word "jihadist"?
Springit'sstillislamofascismevenifyoucallitpepperonipizzamom
However, if you'd like, how about the word "jihadist"?
Springit'sstillislamofascismevenifyoucallitpepperonipizzamom
Springmom, I know you're not trying to offend anyone. In no way was I attacking you personally. I was simply pointing out that we all use (or repeat) words without thinking about the larger context. The term was "invented", in my opinion, to demonise the Muslims in general, to somehow justify attacking a whole race of people instead of just the extremists. Sorry if I'm not making myself clear.
badbob
badbob
Springmom...
I understand you're not trying to crush any toes for law abiding Muslims. However I would have to also argue that any large religion DOES have its share of doing wrong to others. Christianity wronged the Native Americans of their culture and faith by forcing it upon them, and through warfare, and disease as well. Even those who decided to convert were second class citizens. Same with slaves from Africa, they were converted but still overlorded by the whip and shackles. The Salem Witch trials is another example, and the Mormon Mountain Meadows Massacre yet another. Point being when ANY group has a large following be it political or religious, there are bound to be people who commit evil acts and justify it by using religion and politics as a crutch.
Epyon
I understand you're not trying to crush any toes for law abiding Muslims. However I would have to also argue that any large religion DOES have its share of doing wrong to others. Christianity wronged the Native Americans of their culture and faith by forcing it upon them, and through warfare, and disease as well. Even those who decided to convert were second class citizens. Same with slaves from Africa, they were converted but still overlorded by the whip and shackles. The Salem Witch trials is another example, and the Mormon Mountain Meadows Massacre yet another. Point being when ANY group has a large following be it political or religious, there are bound to be people who commit evil acts and justify it by using religion and politics as a crutch.
Epyon
"I thought of it as the fascist arm of Islam. As in Islamic fascist."
Me too. I think there's been some redefining going on in certain political quarters. Either that or somebody is painting with a very wide brush in order to make a point or two. Sort of like throwing the term neo-con around like a slur, isn't it?
John
Me too. I think there's been some redefining going on in certain political quarters. Either that or somebody is painting with a very wide brush in order to make a point or two. Sort of like throwing the term neo-con around like a slur, isn't it?
John