CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Terrorists vs Cartoonists
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Terrorists vs Cartoonists

post #1 of 25
3/12/10 at 11:39pm
Thread Starter 
Looks like the Islamo Fascists are still gunning for that Swedish Cartoonist who drew pictures of Mohammed.

The twist this time; one of the conspirators is a Redneck from Colorado!

From the Wall Street Journal:

By VANESSA O'CONNELL in New York, STEPHANIE SIMON in Colorado and EVAN PEREZ in Washington

Last Easter, Jamie Paulin-Ramirez, a 31-year-old mom with a $30,000-a-year job as a medical assistant, announced to her family that she had converted to Islam. A few months later, she began posting to Facebook forums whose headings included "STOP caLLing MUSLIMS TERRORISTS!"

On Sept. 11, she suddenly left Leadville, Colo., a small town in the Rocky Mountains, for Denver, then for New York, to meet and marry a Muslim man she connected with online, her family says. Ms. Paulin-Ramirez, who is 5-foot-11 and blonde, phoned her mother and stepfather in Leadville, providing them with an address in Waterford, Ireland, they say.

Now, she is in the custody of the Irish police, along with six other individuals, arrested as part of an investigation into a conspiracy to commit murder, according to officials familiar with the case.

I guess we should have seen this coming, but if the Terrorists have combined with the Red Necks, what hope is there?!
Reply
post #2 of 25
3/13/10 at 12:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
...if the Terrorists have combined with the Red Necks, what hope is there?!
It's about time the Islamofascists and Rednecks realized how much they have in common.

The upside is the union between the two significantly decreases the intelligence of at least one side. Which side that is, I'm not sure.
Reply
post #3 of 25
3/13/10 at 1:52am
I have always said most fundamentalist Christians would be happier as Muslims. Jesus' teaching are pretty anti-legalistic, and most fundamentalist by nature are legalistic.
Reply
post #4 of 25
3/13/10 at 5:43am
Could we please stop using the term Islamo Fascists?
Reply
post #5 of 25
3/13/10 at 6:09am
How about Anarcho-Socialists?
Reply
post #6 of 25
3/13/10 at 7:17am
hahahahaha
Reply
post #7 of 25
3/13/10 at 9:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan View Post
Could we please stop using the term Islamo Fascists?
What do you prefer?
Reply
post #8 of 25
3/13/10 at 10:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chavez View Post
What do you prefer?
For me to summarize everything related to Islam and terrorism under the umbrella "Islamofascism" is lazy and counterproductive.

The facets of violent and terroristic acts committed in the name of Islam around the world differ too much to assign this label. The Colorado or Manchester based home grown terrorist, the Sunni Al Qaida cadre, the Shiite Iraqi "freedom fighter" or the Bali Bombers do not work for the same end. Even more I do think that the historic connotations of the term "fascism" are used and work as a manipulative tool to suggest the existence of a homogenic evil Islamic terrorist bloc that conspired to overthrow our democracies and bring the sharia and umma to the whole world. And this worldview does not help the problems we are facing today in my humble opinion.

As to answer your question: Why not go for home grown terrorist/assassinor asscunt if you like?
Reply
post #9 of 25
3/13/10 at 11:53am
Something more accurate; they aren't fascists, people just call them such because they seem all stern and militant in their home videos. How about radical Muslims?

This reads like she was converted to a cult. "Last Easter, Jamie Paulin-Ramirez, a 31-year-old mom with a $30,000-a-year job as a medical assistant, announced to her family that she had converted to Islam." My ex-roommate did a similar thing to me one day, only it was the Hare Krishnas and his name isn't Jamie. Just up and decided to join the Krishnas, and a few days later some weird if very pleasant guys came along to take him away.
Reply
post #10 of 25
3/13/10 at 3:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
Something more accurate; they aren't fascists, people just call them such because they seem all stern and militant in their home videos. How about radical Muslims?

This reads like she was converted to a cult. "Last Easter, Jamie Paulin-Ramirez, a 31-year-old mom with a $30,000-a-year job as a medical assistant, announced to her family that she had converted to Islam." My ex-roommate did a similar thing to me one day, only it was the Hare Krishnas and his name isn't Jamie. Just up and decided to join the Krishnas, and a few days later some weird if very pleasant guys came along to take him away.
As long as they are not blowing shit up who cares what cult someone join, if it make them happy. I had this long thread with this lady from NZ once about some cult in NZ. I kept asking her how are they any different then a 'main stream' church? I knew why they were different, but the differences were not that great, and most of the stuff she was complaining about the big churches do in spades. It seem to me that most people forget one of the oldest commandments, be happy and enjoy life. I would never be a Hare Krishna, Muslim, or a Catholic, because I believe there is a better way, but if it make then happy, I not about to kidnap them for deprogramming.
Reply
post #11 of 25
3/13/10 at 3:50pm
Freaking out over cartoons simply shows that religion is the problem. Not extremism, or Islam. Without a holy book telling them it was unacceptable, who in their right mind would care about a cartoon of some old dead guy from hundreds of years ago?

I mean, sure, they might care, but they wouldn't kill over it
Reply
post #12 of 25
3/13/10 at 4:15pm
There's focus on these cartoonists now because Salman Rushdie was too hard to kill. I can almost see his life story being made into a Bourne movie. Or yeah, a direct-to-video action movie.
Reply
post #13 of 25
3/13/10 at 4:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreary louse View Post
There's focus on these cartoonists now because Salman Rushdie was too hard to kill. I can almost see his life story being made into a Bourne movie. Or yeah, a direct-to-video action movie.
It almost makes me want to take up cartooning just so I can stick my finger in the eye of people who take themselves (and their religion) way too seriously


Though, sadly I doubt my stick figure prophets would do more than confuse them
Reply
post #14 of 25
3/13/10 at 8:52pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreary louse View Post
There's focus on these cartoonists now because Salman Rushdie was too hard to kill. I can almost see his life story being made into a Bourne movie. Or yeah, a direct-to-video action movie.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the next Steven Segal film!
Reply
post #15 of 25
3/13/10 at 10:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan View Post
For me to summarize everything related to Islam and terrorism under the umbrella "Islamofascism" is lazy and counterproductive.
Fascist - Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong;

Aside from not having a "nation" per se, that sounds pretty much like Muslim radicals to me.
Reply
post #16 of 25
3/14/10 at 6:57am
As I have pointed out in my previous post I regard that term as an empty and pejorative propaganda term like War on terror. Terror is a tactic. Not an enemy. You don´t declare war on carpet bombing either. Who or what should islamofascism exactly be? Are we discussing a specific mindset? An ideology? A rogue regime or non state actor?

Ironically the closest your definition would apply to would be your wahabitic ally Saudi Arabia. And I´d argue that the tea party movement could very well be summarized under that definition as well.

And adding to the simplification and ignorance towards the differing goals of differing Islamic trends laid out above this term comes dangerously close to equating Islam in general with fascism and/or terror. Something that is completely wrong and strengthens hostility on all sides.
Reply
post #17 of 25
3/14/10 at 12:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chavez View Post
Fascist - Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong;

Aside from not having a "nation" per se, that sounds pretty much like Muslim radicals to me.
So do communists if you substitute nation for the working class. So do republicans. You either must use the correct term or not use one at all.
Reply
post #18 of 25
3/14/10 at 2:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan View Post
As I have pointed out in my previous post I regard that term as an empty and pejorative propaganda term like War on terror. Terror is a tactic. Not an enemy. You don´t declare war on carpet bombing either.

Ironically the closest your definition would apply to would be your wahabitic ally Saudi Arabia. And I´d argue that the tea party movement could very well be summarized under that definition as well.
Hmm, you got that I was a Tea Partier/supporter of the Saudis all from one li'l term, huh?

Intriguing use of inductive reasoning. And I really WOULD label the more vocal members of the Tea Party movement as fascists.

Communism in and of itself as an ideal may not be fascistic; as practiced in the Soviet Union and China, it has been corrupted to be very similar to fascism.
Reply
post #19 of 25
3/14/10 at 3:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan View Post
As I have pointed out in my previous post I regard that term as an empty and pejorative propaganda term like War on terror. Terror is a tactic. Not an enemy. You don´t declare war on carpet bombing either. Who or what should islamofascism exactly be? Are we discussing a specific mindset? An ideology? A rogue regime or non state actor?
logic has no place in a political debate.
Reply
post #20 of 25
3/15/10 at 8:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chavez View Post
Hmm, you got that I was a Tea Partier/supporter of the Saudis all from one li'l term, huh?
Oh, come on. I sincerely hope you don´t consider me that retarded to label you a supporter of any of those groups based on what you wrote. Because that would be indefensible indeed. Obviously "you" was meant as in an ally of the USA from an European perspective. Apologies for any misunderstanding and percieved retardation.

Quote:
Intriguing use of inductive reasoning. And I really WOULD label the more vocal members of the Tea Party movement as fascists.
Based on my prior comment I hope we got the inductive reasoning out of the way. Regarding your tea party argument I actually would not precisely for the same reasons I oppose the term islamofascist. Sure, there are fringe groups and individuals to find under that umbrella that surely would qualify as fascistic. But to use it in such broad strokes is counterproductive as well in this case. Hence me reciting this as another incident where broad classifications harm the debate and constitute an obstacle to get to the heart of the matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Hill View Post
logic has no place in a political debate.
Sad but true. Though that doesn´t render my argument invalid.
Reply
post #21 of 25
3/15/10 at 8:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chavez View Post
And I really WOULD label the more vocal members of the Tea Party movement as fascists.
As a general purpose put-down yes. But their rhetoric at least is strongly anti-statist. And statism is a crucial component to fascism.
Reply
post #22 of 25
3/15/10 at 1:18pm
The trouble is that people try to assign the term "fascist" based on methods rather than ideology, so the term "fascist" becomes watered down and meaningless. "Fascism" applies very specifically to a nation or race, not a religion. If it's a religion, it's not fascism. Hardcore religious repression is a different thing entirely--would you claim that the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades were fascist?

Likewise, Chavez is comparing it to Stalinist communism, which sort of furthers my point. Lots of regimes use repressive, totalitarian methods; that's not fascism, necessarily, that's totalitarianism.

It makes about as much sense as calling them Islamopedophiles. Just because you don't like two separate things, doesn't mean they're the same.
Reply
post #23 of 25
3/15/10 at 6:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
As a general purpose put-down yes. But their rhetoric at least is strongly anti-statist. And statism is a crucial component to fascism.
You're correct in that; after thinking of it, I'd suppose that the TP guys, at this point in time, come across as militantly anti-statist, which is completely the opposite of fascism.

However, I predict that the anti-statist stance does a 180 as soon as the GOP gets back into power.
Reply
post #24 of 25
4/29/10 at 6:55pm
Huh, I could have sworn there was a thread in here for the South Park controversy? Anyway, I like what this guy has to say about it.

Broadly speaking, I'm on the side of Parker and Stone, but I'm not 100% comfortable with that. Being in the right doesn't excuse you being an asshole.
Reply
post #25 of 25
4/29/10 at 8:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post
Freaking out over cartoons simply shows that religion is the problem. Not extremism, or Islam. Without a holy book telling them it was unacceptable, who in their right mind would care about a cartoon of some old dead guy from hundreds of years ago?

I mean, sure, they might care, but they wouldn't kill over it
Oh, irony, how deep it doth go.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Terrorists vs Cartoonists