0
   

Best Presidential Candidate for the job ??

 
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 09:02 am
I would like to know how many islamofascists there are in the world. Anyone on this idiotic thread have any idea?
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 09:50 am
kickycan wrote:
I would like to know how many islamofascists there are in the world. Anyone on this idiotic thread have any idea?


The only thing idiotic is the constant puking all over this thread by
a few who can't grasp the idea that islamofascists want to kill us.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  0  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 09:50 am
I would like to know how many islamofascists there are in the world. Anyone on this idiotic thread have any idea?
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 09:52 am
The only thing idiotic is the constant puking all over this thread by
a few who can't grasp the idea that islamofascists want to kill us.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 09:59 am
If only you'd answer the question.

How many islamofascists are there in the world?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 10:04 am
If you don't know the answer to that Kicky, how can any of the rest of us know the answer. I have seen number ranging from 100,000 to 200,000 and including pockets of militant Islam (i.e. Islamofacists) from Indonesia to Europe to Africa to the Middle East. So why don't you tell us exactly how many of them there are?
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 10:12 am
I have no idea. I just thought, since H20 Man is so worried about this islamofascist threat, he might want to know how big a threat it actually is before deciding who is the better candidate to fight it.

For instance, if there are like 500 islamofascists, and they have no political power, our strategy would be way different than if, say, there were fifty million of them, don't you think? It seems the answer to the thread question might change depending on how much actual power they have to do us harm, don't you agree?

So H2O man, how many do you think there are?
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 10:15 am
And now that you've given your estimate foxfyre, unless you can provide a link or two to some source wherein your numbers can be verified, we can safely assume that it is much less than 100,000, given your penchant for exaggeration and deception whenever it suits your argument.

What say ye, H20 Dude!?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 10:25 am
It took what, 19 guys?, to carry out the carnage on 9/11. I did not cite any numbers as definitive but only the numbers that I've heard. I think it is safe to assume there are more than 19 others out there tough. Do you think that even 19 radical Muslim islamofacists well funded, well trained, and committed to killing as many non-Muslim men, women, and children as they can kill should be taken seriously, Kicky?
0 Replies
 
Kitten with a Whip
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 10:30 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Who would be included in this consensus other than Islamofacist sympathizers?


Are you a member of the Christo-Fascist Zombie Brigade? Smile
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 10:30 am
Foxfyre wrote:
It took what, 19 guys?, to carry out the carnage on 9/11. I did not cite any numbers as definitive but only the numbers that I've heard. I think it is safe to assume there are more than 19 others out there tough. Do you think that even 19 radical Muslim islamofacists well funded, well trained, and committed to killing as many non-Muslim men, women, and children as they can kill should be taken seriously, Kicky?


Yes, and I believe that whoever can best fight and win against those nineteen islamofascists should be the sole criterion for picking our next president. It's the only prudent way to go.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 10:32 am
I certainly think it is prudent to elect a president who at least understands that they are out there whether 15 or 200,000 (the latter being a more realistic figure I think) and also a president with the instincts to protect the American people against whatever those Islamofacists might decide to do next.
0 Replies
 
Kitten with a Whip
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 10:33 am
kickycan wrote:
Yes, and I believe that whoever can best fight and win against those fifteen islamofascists should be the sole criterion for picking our next president. It's the only prudent way to go.


Fifteen!!!! You are way off, I have had at least thirty Islamo-fascist clients alone if middle-eaastern guys who like to dress up in military garb counts.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 10:33 am
Kitten with a Whip wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Who would be included in this consensus other than Islamofacist sympathizers?


Are you a member of the Christo-Fascist Zombie Brigade? Smile


She's not only a member, she's the president!
0 Replies
 
Kitten with a Whip
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 10:36 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I certainly think it is prudent to elect a president who at least understands that they are out there whether 15 or 200,000 (the latter being a more realistic figure I think) and also a president with the instincts to protect the American people against whatever those Islamofacists might decide to do next.


Where are these people besides inside your brain, of course, and what is the URL to their website. What threat do they pose exactly and what should our new president do about it?


BTW I know for a fact these guys are pretty harmless and they tip well.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 10:43 am
I also wonder how many islamofascists there were before Bush became president, compared to how many there are now. If there are more now than there were before that assh*le became our president, then I'd say his strategy of fighting these people isn't working. And if that's the case, then who on earth would want to keep going in that direction? McCain, that's who!
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 10:57 am
Kitten with a Whip wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I certainly think it is prudent to elect a president who at least understands that they are out there whether 15 or 200,000 (the latter being a more realistic figure I think) and also a president with the instincts to protect the American people against whatever those Islamofacists might decide to do next.


Where are these people besides inside your brain, of course, and what is the URL to their website. What threat do they pose exactly and what should our new president do about it?


BTW I know for a fact these guys are pretty harmless and they tip well.


Let me guess. You also believe the Holocaust was a hoax, that Neil Armstrong never walked on the moon, that 9/11 was an inside job committed by the US government, that Dick Cheney personally blew up that levee to let the flood into New Orleans, and that little green men from Mars exist? Right?
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 11:06 am
kickycan wrote:
... assh*le -- president,...


Clinton (aka assh*le president) responded the way left wing liberal whack jobs wanted him to and they kept coming.

Bush responded as any sane leader would and went after them... they stopped coming.

If we revert back to the policy of the assh*le Clinton they will come after us once again.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 11:08 am
http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Emerging_Threats/Briefing/2007/11/28/report_islamofascism_blinds_us/6439/

Report: 'Islamofascism' blinds U.S.

Published: Nov. 28, 2007 at 4:52 PM

WASHINGTON, Nov. 28 (UPI) -- The term "Islamofascism" dangerously obscures important distinctions and differences between groups of Islamic extremists, says a counter-terror think tank.

"Since Sept. 11 conservatives have continually lumped various groups and countries together … into one threat that they term 'Islamofascism,'" according to the National Security Network, a group of left-leaning former U.S. officials and experts in counter-terrorism and national security.

"The reality is much complicated," reads their report issued Wednesday. The groups and nations that make up the "Islamofascist" threat include al-Qaida, al-Qaida in Iraq, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian government institutions that they control, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In reality, the report says, "These various groups and countries have different intentions and capabilities, often work at cross purposes and are in some cases ideologically opposed to each other."

Escalating tensions across the region between Shiites and Sunnis only emphasize their divergent interests and intentions.

"By confusing these various threats, conservatives make it impossible to pursue effective policies," the report concludes, adding that the approach "has caused the United States to miss numerous opportunities, where it could have played these groups off of each other to America's benefit."

The term also "creates the perception that the United States is fighting a religious war against Islam, thus alienating moderate voices in the region who would be willing to work with America towards common goals."

"Dividing these groups and dealing with them separately is a far better policy than lumping them together," the report concludes.

© 2007 United Press International. All Rights Reserved.
This material may not be reproduced, redistributed, or manipulated in any form.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 11:18 am
Islamic Fascism 101
On all they've done to earn the name.


By Victor Davis Hanson

Make no apologies for the use of "Islamic fascism." It is the perfect nomenclature for the agenda of radical Islam, for a variety of historical and scholarly reasons. That such usage also causes extreme embarrassment to both the Islamists themselves and their leftist "anti-fascist" appeasers in the West is just too bad.

First, the general idea of "fascism" ?- the creation of a centralized authoritarian state to enforce blanket obedience to a reactionary, all-encompassing ideology ?- fits well the aims of contemporary Islamism that openly demands implementation of sharia law and the return to a Pan-Islamic and theocratic caliphate.

In addition, Islamists, as is true of all fascists, privilege their own particular creed of true believers by harkening back to a lost, pristine past, in which the devout were once uncorrupted by modernism.

True, bin Laden's mythical Volk doesn't bath in the clear icy waters of the Rhine untouched by the filth of the Tiber; but rather they ride horses and slice the wind with their scimitars in service of a soon to be reborn majestic world of caliphs and mullahs. Osama bin Laden sashaying in his flowing robes is not all that different from the obese Herman Goering in reindeer horns plodding around his Karinhall castle with suspenders and alpine shorts.

Because fascism is born out of insecurity and the sense of failure, hatred for Jews is de rigueur. To read al Qaeda's texts is to reenter the world of Mein Kampf (naturally now known as jihadi in the Arab world). The crackpot minister of its ideology, Dr. Zawahiri, is simply a Dr. Alfred Rosenberg come alive ?- a similar quarter-educated buffoon, who has just enough of a vocabulary to dress up fascist venom in a potpourri of historical misreadings and pseudo-learning.

Envy and false grievance, as in the past with Italian, German, or Japanese whining, are always imprinted deeply within the fascist mind. After all, it can never quite figure out why the morally pure, the politically zealous, the ever more obedient are losing out to corrupt and decadent democracies ?- where "mixing," either in the racial or religious sense, should instead have enervated the people.

The "will" of the German people, like the "Banzai" spirit of the Japanese, should always trump the cowardly and debased material superiority of decadent Western democracies. So al Qaeda boasts that in Somalia and Afghanistan the unshakeable creed of Islam overcame the richer and better equipped Americans and Russians. To read bin Laden's communiqués is to be reminded of old Admiral Yamamato assuring his creepy peers that his years in the United States in the 1920s taught him that Roaring Twenties America, despite its fancy cars and skyscrapers, simply could not match the courage of the chosen Japanese.

Second, fascism thrives best in a once proud, recently humbled, but now ascendant, people. They are ripe to be deluded into thinking contemporary setbacks were caused by others and are soon to be erased through ever more zealotry. What Versailles and reparations were to Hitler's new Germany, what Western colonialism and patronizing in the Pacific were to the rising sun of the Japanese, what the embarrassing image of the perennial sick man of Europe was to Mussolini's new Rome, so too Israel, modernism, and America's ubiquitous pop culture are to the Islamists, confident of a renaissance via vast petro-weatlh.

Such reactionary fascism is complex because it marries the present's unhappiness with moping about a regal past ?- with glimpses of an even more regal future. Fascism is not quite the narcotic of the hopeless, but rather the opiate of the recently failed now on the supposed rebound who welcome the cheap fix of blaming others and bragging about their own iron will.

Third, while there is generic fascism, its variants naturally weave preexisting threads familiar to a culture at large. Hitler's brand cribbed together notions of German will, Aryanism, and the cult of the Ubermensch from Hegel, Nietzsche, and Spengler, with ample Nordic folk romance found from Wagner to Tacitus's Germania. Japanese militarism's racist creed, fanaticism, and sense of historical destiny were a motley synthesis of Bushido, Zen and Shinto Buddhism, emperor worship, and past samurai legends. Mussolini's fasces, and the idea of an indomitable Caesarian Duce (or Roman Dux), were a pathetic attempt to resurrect imperial Rome. So too Islamic fascism draws on the Koran, the career of Saladin, and the tracts of Nasserites, Baathists, and Muslim Brotherhood pamphleteers.

Fourth, just as it was idle in the middle of World War II to speculate how many Germans, Japanese, or Italians really accepted the silly hatred of Hitler, Mussolini, or Tojo, so too it is a vain enterprise to worry over how many Muslims follow or support al Qaeda, or, in contrast, how many in the Middle East actively resist Islamists.

Most people have no ideology, but simply accommodate themselves to the prevailing sense of an agenda's success or failure. Just as there weren't more than a dozen vocal critics of Hitler after the Wehrmacht finished off France in six weeks in June of 1940, so too there wasn't a Nazi to be found in June 1945 when Berlin lay in rubble.

It doesn't matter whether Middle Easterners actually accept the tenets of bin Laden's worldview ?- not if they think he is on the ascendancy, can bring them a sense of restored pride, and humiliate the Jews and the West on the cheap. Bin Laden is no more eccentric or impotent than Hitler was in the late 1920s.Yet if he can claim that his martyrs forced the United States out of Afghanistan and Iraq, toppled a petrol sheikdom or two, and acquired its wealth and influence ?- or if he got his hands on nuclear weapons and lorded it over appeasing Westerners ?- then he too, like the Fuhrer in the 1930s, will become untouchable. The same is true of Iran's president Ahmadinejad.

Fifth, fascism springs from untruth and embraces lying. Hitler had contempt for those who believed him after Czechoslovakia. He broke every agreement from Munich to the Soviet non-aggression pact. So did the Japanese, who were sending their fleet to Pearl Harbor even as they talked of a new diplomatic breakthrough.

Al-Zawahiri in his writings spends an inordinate amount of effort excusing al Qaeda's lies by referring to the Koranic notions of tactical dissimulation. We remember Arafat saying one thing in English and another in Arabic, and bin Laden denying responsibility for September 11 and then later boasting of it. Nothing a fascist says can be trusted, since all means are relegated to the ends of seeing their ideology reified. So too Islamic fascists, by any means necessary, will fib, and hedge for the cause of Islamism. Keep that in mind when considering Iran's protestations about its "peaceful" nuclear aims.

We can argue whether the present-day Islamic fascists have the military means comparable to what was had in the past by Nazis, Fascists, and militarists ?- I think a dirty bomb is worth the entire Luftwaffe, one nuclear missile all the striking power of the Japanese imperial Navy ?- but there should be no argument over who they are and what they want. They are fascists of an Islamic sort, pure and simple.

And the least we can do is to call them that: after all, they earned it.
LINK
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/05/2026 at 12:42:58