the term "islamo-fascism", valid?



Mainstream Christians do accept the Torah. Historically they had no choice. The main Christian group that rejected the O.T. was the Marcionites led by Marcion who you should find on Google. Marcionites excluded the O.T. and clung to St Paul since Paul differed from Peter over the old Law vs Grace scenario.
Marcion didn't survive orthodoxy since he offered no ancient historical source which is why Christians needed to use the O.T. as canon.
Like it or not, Jesus was Jewish, Mary was Jewish, the apostles were Jewish and the texts Jesus read in the temples were O.T. texts. I hate to be awkward but virtually all Christians use the O.T. and accept the O.T., including David Koresh and even the Children Of God (the former cult).
Last point. It's accepted Christians caused the Roman Empire more problems than Jews. Christians didn't believe in sex and taught it was sinful. They wouldn't fight in the army either. Christianity caused a major headache and now, even today, we're stuck with George W Bush - another radical adherent. :p


gavin11756 said:
Jews have for some reason never wanted to fit in to host cultures. This is why they have been persecuted. A mob of Christians led by Christ were persecuted long before Christians persecuted jews. Jews have always been allowed to make a living and become wealthy. The host culture has never persecuted jews until they, jews got out of hand with either usury or ancient barbaric practices.

Judaism is, after all, an ancient barbaric cult!
:)

Christians do not accept the O.T! That is the Torah! And King David is not for those of Northwest European blood! To take up Jesus as a saviour due to his fine example does not mean you support jewish interpretations
 
Carrera said:
Mainstream Christians do accept the Torah. Historically they had no choice. The main Christian group that rejected the O.T. was the Marcionites led by Marcion who you should find on Google. Marcionites excluded the O.T. and clung to St Paul since Paul differed from Peter over the old Law vs Grace scenario.
Marcion didn't survive orthodoxy since he offered no ancient historical source which is why Christians needed to use the O.T. as canon.
Like it or not, Jesus was Jewish, Mary was Jewish, the apostles were Jewish and the texts Jesus read in the temples were O.T. texts. I hate to be awkward but virtually all Christians use the O.T. and accept the O.T., including David Koresh and even the Children Of God (the former cult).
Last point. It's accepted Christians caused the Roman Empire more problems than Jews. Christians didn't believe in sex and taught it was sinful. They wouldn't fight in the army either. Christianity caused a major headache and now, even today, we're stuck with George W Bush - another radical adherent. :p


Is Bush really a Christian or a neocon jew puppet ? Christian generally are
not aware thay the OT is a jewish book. If they were, they would be like
others and reject it! I think Christians don't have a prblem with Christ
being Jewish!

G
:)
 
Carrera said:
...What people are saying is something like if a bottle of vodka is stolen in a house shared by Russians and American Mormons, you can bet your bottom dollar the Russians are the most likely suspects for having stolen the vodka.
Or would you start your investigations by searching the American Mormons? :confused:...
I read up on that case, Carrera. It turned out that one of the Mormons saw the bottle of vodka sitting on the bench beside the shared refrigerator. Believing he/she (the report didn't mention the gender of the individual involved) was doing God's work, the offender poured the vodka down the sink and disposed of the bottle in the segregated recycling bin near the intersection with Loadacrap Street.
I picked the Mormons from the beginning - years of playing Cludo has left me with an uncannily developed profiling instinct. During my time as a Judge, only 1 in 23 of the people I sentenced to death posthumously
turned out to be innocent. Not a bad tally, if I do say so myself.
 
I don't think any of this is particularly hard to understand. The current global crisis is being caused by religion, namely the struggle between the two main world religions Christianity and Islam.
What do radical Moslems seek? Simple. They want to create an Islamic Middle East and take control over Jerusalem. They want full control over the various cultural sites located in the region.
What do Christians seek? Again simple. Radical Christians don't want to see radical Moslems controlling Jerusalem or witness a totally Islamic Middle East.
Therefore, Israel is simply a bone of contention between 2 radical religions. Bush isn't fighting a religious war out of charity towards Israel since the U.S. has been funding the Palestinians for decades. Bush is fighting a religious war because he wants influence over Israel and access for Christians to religous sites.
The problem is Christians and Moslems are fighting over Israel because amazingly both religions are offshoots of Judaism.
Isn't it strange that anti-semitism is virtually unheard of in countries whose main religion isn't based on Judaism, such as Thailand, Japan e.t.c. I've never met an anti-semitic Hare Krishna devotee yet since the Krishnas have their own unique religion. Seems like a more peaceful, tolerant religion too.





gavin11756 said:
Is Bush really a Christian or a neocon jew puppet ? Christian generally are
not aware thay the OT is a jewish book. If they were, they would be like
others and reject it! I think Christians don't have a prblem with Christ
being Jewish!

G
:)
 
The problems Christians have here is Jesus himself is shown quoting the O.T. There are thousands of examples. Apparently he quotes the O.T. to the devil in the wilderness and says, "It is written...." e.t.c.
So, why would Jesus be quoting passages that supposedly have nothing to do with Christianity? Either he believed in these passages or he disbelieved. That's why the Pope and Bishops e.t.c. accept the O.T. as part of the Christian faith and believe the world was created in 6 days.



gavin11756 said:
Is Bush really a Christian or a neocon jew puppet ? Christian generally are
not aware thay the OT is a jewish book. If they were, they would be like
others and reject it! I think Christians don't have a prblem with Christ
being Jewish!

G
:)
 
Carrera said:
I don't think any of this is particularly hard to understand. The current global crisis is being caused by religion, namely the struggle between the two main world religions Christianity and Islam.
What do radical Moslems seek? Simple. They want to create an Islamic Middle East and take control over Jerusalem. They want full control over the various cultural sites located in the region.
What do Christians seek? Again simple. Radical Christians don't want to see radical Moslems controlling Jerusalem or witness a totally Islamic Middle East.
Therefore, Israel is simply a bone of contention between 2 radical religions. Bush isn't fighting a religious war out of charity towards Israel since the U.S. has been funding the Palestinians for decades. Bush is fighting a religious war because he wants influence over Israel and access for Christians to religous sites.
The problem is Christians and Moslems are fighting over Israel because amazingly both religions are offshoots of Judaism.
Isn't it strange that anti-semitism is virtually unheard of in countries whose main religion isn't based on Judaism, such as Thailand, Japan e.t.c. I've never met an anti-semitic Hare Krishna devotee yet since the Krishnas have their own unique religion. Seems like a more peaceful, tolerant religion too.


quote " don't think any of this is particularly hard to understand. The current global crisis is being caused by religion, namely the struggle between the two main world religions Christianity and Islam."

With respects that is incorrect. the neocons and those behind Bush are zionist jews. Christianity is nothing more than a mask anbad one at that. :)
 
Sounds like you based your views on ideas that floated around Germany in the Thirties - all Jews are out to get us e.t.c. :eek:

gavin11756 said:
quote " don't think any of this is particularly hard to understand. The current global crisis is being caused by religion, namely the struggle between the two main world religions Christianity and Islam."

With respects that is incorrect. the neocons and those behind Bush are zionist jews. Christianity is nothing more than a mask anbad one at that. :)
 
Carrera said:
Sounds like you based your views on ideas that floated around Germany in the Thirties - all Jews are out to get us e.t.c. :eek:

You can't use that old chestnut. Who are the neocons ? JINSA. AIPAC! The office of special plans! It's as plain as a wart on yer ****.

It's about time we stopped looking at Jews as innocent lambs because of ******! If they hadn't of made nuisances of themselves in the first place and not be the demanding bastards they are they would have been fine! Jews weren't victims when they led the Soviets into Gov't in Russia and turned Churches into pigstys!

Look around you. go to the websites of the abovementioned. Also checkout Project for a new American century.

Easy to blame Christians. Easy to blame them as they don' have power or hit back. You know I'm speaking the truth but you will bear false witness on an innocent group and support criminals becuase they were banged up prison in WW2

I do not consider Bushes Christianity as Christianity. Nor would the Anglicans or catholics
:)
 
You didn't by any chance have a part in that film with Michael Douglas called Falling Down? You know, the bald guy who ran an arms shop and was apparently against black folks, Jews, gays and even female police officers he said should be called "officeresses"?
At any rate, organised religion was banned in Soviet Russia and that includes all religions. So, it seems strange to me that if communism was a "Jewish conspiracy" (in reality dreamed up by German philosophers such as Marx) Lenin didn't build hundreds of Synagogues instead of Orthodox churches.
Actually, I don't blame mainstream Christians or Moslems. What I was saying is all religious groups have caused problems in their time and produced extremist elements. My point has always been that the 3 main religions don't seem to get along and adherents of all the faiths seem to loathe one another, except maybe the buddhists and pagans.





gavin11756 said:
You can't use that old chestnut. Who are the neocons ? JINSA. AIPAC! The office of special plans! It's as plain as a wart on yer ****.

It's about time we stopped looking at Jews as innocent lambs because of ******! If they hadn't of made nuisances of themselves in the first place and not be the demanding bastards they are they would have been fine! Jews weren't victims when they led the Soviets into Gov't in Russia and turned Churches into pigstys!

Look around you. go to the websites of the abovementioned. Also checkout Project for a new American century.

Easy to blame Christians. Easy to blame them as they don' have power or hit back. You know I'm speaking the truth but you will bear false witness on an innocent group and support criminals becuase they were banged up prison in WW2

I do not consider Bushes Christianity as Christianity. Nor would the Anglicans or catholics
:)
 
"Who are the neocons ?"

It's a pity so few people are aware how actively Blair supported war. Blair didn't just go to war because he was forced to. He wanted to go into Iraq. he also wanted to bomb Serbia and tried to get U.S. conscripts to go in there.
There's such a thing as responsibility and I don't accept we winded up in Iraq due to Israel. America went into Iraq to protect America's personal oil interests and Blair went into Iraq because he likes giving speeches and having a special place in the U.N. e.t.c.
In my view, Blair was morally contrained not to go into Iraq as millions of people opposed him. Yet he ignored democracy and went ahead anyway. Now they criticize Russia for not being a democracy! :(


gavin11756 said:
You can't use that old chestnut. Who are the neocons ? JINSA. AIPAC! The office of special plans! It's as plain as a wart on yer ****.

It's about time we stopped looking at Jews as innocent lambs because of ******! If they hadn't of made nuisances of themselves in the first place and not be the demanding bastards they are they would have been fine! Jews weren't victims when they led the Soviets into Gov't in Russia and turned Churches into pigstys!

Look around you. go to the websites of the abovementioned. Also checkout Project for a new American century.

Easy to blame Christians. Easy to blame them as they don' have power or hit back. You know I'm speaking the truth but you will bear false witness on an innocent group and support criminals becuase they were banged up prison in WW2

I do not consider Bushes Christianity as Christianity. Nor would the Anglicans or catholics
:)
 
Carrera said:
"Who are the neocons ?"

It's a pity so few people are aware how actively Blair supported war. Blair didn't just go to war because he was forced to. He wanted to go into Iraq. he also wanted to bomb Serbia and tried to get U.S. conscripts to go in there.
There's such a thing as responsibility and I don't accept we winded up in Iraq due to Israel. America went into Iraq to protect America's personal oil interests and Blair went into Iraq because he likes giving speeches and having a special place in the U.N. e.t.c.
In my view, Blair was morally contrained not to go into Iraq as millions of people opposed him. Yet he ignored democracy and went ahead anyway. Now they criticize Russia for not being a democracy! :(


Yes I believe you are right. Israel though benefits from the activity here of jewish PACS in the U.S. No one had any reason to go to Iraq in my view.
:)
 
bush refers to "islamic-fascists" in public speech, does this lend credibility to the term or just expose him again as a hatemonger who is willing to generalize against a people and a faith?

www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645192227,00.html



gavin11756 said:
quote " don't think any of this is particularly hard to understand. The current global crisis is being caused by religion, namely the struggle between the two main world religions Christianity and Islam."

With respects that is incorrect. the neocons and those behind Bush are zionist jews. Christianity is nothing more than a mask anbad one at that. :)
 
lyotard said:
bush refers to "islamic-fascists" in public speech, does this lend credibility to the term or just expose him again as a hatemonger who is willing to generalize against a people and a faith?

The latter, and also that he takes his inspiration from another hate-filled drunken sot, Hitchens.
 
Islam might be authoritarian...but so is christianity..and judaism for that matter.That's a pretty broad generalisation of course and the issue needs much more discussion.
Even the most extreme muslim fundamentalists are not fascist.By coining the term dubya is either showing massive ignorance of the historical roots of fascism and authoritarian islam,or cynically hate-mongering in the tradition of goebbels.
Or a combination of the two.
 
lyotard said:
...funny how we do not hear of "judeo-christian fascism", for example.

i wonder, one, what people think about the use of this term, it's acceptibility, validity, and implications,
and two, if it is being used in the mainstream media in the UK.
Valid? Sure, as a certain attitude people attach to their religion, based on their understanding of "sacred" texts. Fascism ultimately appeals to utopian desires. Utopian desires appeal to desperate, hopeless people. The important question is: why are people without hope?

"Christian fascism" is just as valid, if less prominent in the world at the moment. But I'm afraid it's on the rise here in the USA, and that concerns me at least as much as "Islamo-fascism."
.
 
Carrera said:
You didn't by any chance have a part in that film with Michael Douglas called Falling Down? You know, the bald guy who ran an arms shop and was apparently against black folks, Jews, gays and even female police officers he said should be called "officeresses"?
At any rate, organised religion was banned in Soviet Russia and that includes all religions. So, it seems strange to me that if communism was a "Jewish conspiracy" (in reality dreamed up by German philosophers such as Marx) Lenin didn't build hundreds of Synagogues instead of Orthodox churches.
Actually, I don't blame mainstream Christians or Moslems. What I was saying is all religious groups have caused problems in their time and produced extremist elements. My point has always been that the 3 main religions don't seem to get along and adherents of all the faiths seem to loathe one another, except maybe the buddhists and pagans.
Chapter X,Article 124.
The soviet constitution had about as much meaning as the us constitution.They were both fine documents (Ho Chi Minh had a framed copy of the us constitution on his office wall),but they were both perverted to mean whatever those in power wanted them to mean.
http://www.politicsforum.org/documents/constitution_ussr_1936.php
PoliticsForum.org - U.S.S.R. Constitution 1936
 
darkboong said:
The latter, and also that he takes his inspiration from another hate-filled drunken sot, Hitchens.

Speaking of Chris Hitchens, check out this little gem

Chase me, ladies, I'm in the cavalry
Sunday, October 09, 2005

HITCHENS BELLOWS AT STUDENTS, SOBS UNCONTROLLABLY
Christopher Hitchens is a visiting professor of Liberal Studies at the New School for Social Research. This email from "Jeff", one of his former students, was sent to the faculty head, complaining about Hitchens' behaviour. Jeff is now in the witness protection programmme.

"My enjoyment of the Methods of Cultural Criticism course was spoiled by the fact that the man chosen to teach it, Christopher Hitchens, is emotionally unstable. He regularly turned up to 10am lectures smelling of drink; his speech was slurred and he was unsteady on his feet. Sometimes he would wear false whiskers or a hat of some kind.

He often burst into song in the middle of lectures; sometimes even in the middle of sentences: "History, too, might have endings and ironies that are simply inscrutable, or that do not yield to any known dialectic, and now I am the ruler of the Queen's Naveee." As he sang, he picked up a chair and waltzed around the room with it in the most extraordinary manner. After several minutes of this he stood rigidly to attention, announced that he had murdered his wife the previous evening, then collapsed on the floor sniggering.

I will never forget his tutorial on Said’s Orientalism. When we entered his office he was sitting in a revolving chair with his back to us. Suddenly he swivelled round and began doing Groucho Marx impressions. He was wearing a ball gown and had an unlit cigar in his mouth. When this embarrassing display was over he asked us if we would rather discuss Edward Said or sing Gilbert and Sullivan songs. When we chose Dr Said he sulked for the rest of the morning.

He was much given to emotional outbursts and violent, irrational behaviour; but above all he was paranoid. One morning he stood on a desk and asked us why we all hated him. No one said anything, but some of us began inching towards the door. Finally he lost his temper and began shouting and screaming. The sight of my tutor, red in the face and clearly drunk, shaking an enraged fist at his literature class was highly upsetting. "You think you can have a good laugh at my expense,” he bellowed. "But I make more in a week than you’ll see in your miserable lives. You make me sick.” Several minutes later we shuffled from the room in embarrassed silence. Hitchens lay crumpled in a heap on the floor and was sobbing uncontrollably.

Many people in the department ascribe his odd behaviour to drunkeness and encroaching senility. But they have missed the point: It's not the drink. It is my opinion that he crossed the frontier between eccentricity and full-blown psychosis some time ago, and should be relieved of his teaching duties before someone gets hurt."


:)
 
Wurm said:
For a dose of reality, see above post.
For a dose of reality take a gander at the pics of NICK BERG getting his head lopped off with a butter knife...Give me a break!
 
Fascism is usually described as having the following characteristics...extreme nationalism ("patriotism"),a high degree of corporate power in economic matters,a strongly held belief in the inherent superiority of one group over another and an authoritarian and dictatorial government/leader.
Radical islam is internationalist,anti-corporate (to a very high degree) and more about good v.evil or right v. wrong than any belief in superiority.Islam has always been a multi-cultural religion.
Power in islamic societies is largely held in the mosques.It's still authoritarian but there is nothing in islam to suggest the centalisation of power.
Describing radical islam as "fascist" is quite incorrect.It either shows a complete lack of understanding or is just,as George Orwell put it "It just means something that you don't like.".
The religious right and neo-conservative dogma is much closer to fascism than islam.Under the right social and economic conditions such as a world-wide depression caused by an oil crisis it wouldn't take much to tip over.
I frequently quote Huey Long, that "when fascism comes to america,it will come wrapped in the american flag."
Radical islam is bound to fail.It might be possible to use force to command obedience,but force cannot make people believe and islam is based on belief.
The extremist groups claiming affiliation with islam are untypical of islam generally.Overwhelmingly most moslems are opposed to their tactics but their condemnation is often ignored in the west.
Anti-semitism is not unique to islamic extremists and it didn't originate with them.It is a christian invention...the crusaders who invaded the middle east were anti-semitic and frequently slaughtered them,along with arabic orthodox christians.Anti-semitism didn't really take hold of the Middle East until europeans started to invade the ME in the late 19thC.Islam may not have been kind to the jews,but until the late 19thC there was nothing like the anti-semitism that can be seen throughout Europe's history for many hundreds of years.
As you correctly state,the important question is "Why are people without hope?".I believe that's a question that very few Western leaders want asked,let alone answered.
 
gavin11756 said:
Speaking of Chris Hitchens, check out this little gem

Chase me, ladies, I'm in the cavalry
Sunday, October 09, 2005

HITCHENS BELLOWS AT STUDENTS, SOBS UNCONTROLLABLY
Christopher Hitchens is a visiting professor of Liberal Studies at the New School for Social Research. This email from "Jeff", one of his former students, was sent to the faculty head, complaining about Hitchens' behaviour. Jeff is now in the witness protection programmme.

"My enjoyment of the Methods of Cultural Criticism course was spoiled by the fact that the man chosen to teach it, Christopher Hitchens, is emotionally unstable. He regularly turned up to 10am lectures smelling of drink; his speech was slurred and he was unsteady on his feet. Sometimes he would wear false whiskers or a hat of some kind.

He often burst into song in the middle of lectures; sometimes even in the middle of sentences: "History, too, might have endings and ironies that are simply inscrutable, or that do not yield to any known dialectic, and now I am the ruler of the Queen's Naveee." As he sang, he picked up a chair and waltzed around the room with it in the most extraordinary manner. After several minutes of this he stood rigidly to attention, announced that he had murdered his wife the previous evening, then collapsed on the floor sniggering.

I will never forget his tutorial on Said’s Orientalism. When we entered his office he was sitting in a revolving chair with his back to us. Suddenly he swivelled round and began doing Groucho Marx impressions. He was wearing a ball gown and had an unlit cigar in his mouth. When this embarrassing display was over he asked us if we would rather discuss Edward Said or sing Gilbert and Sullivan songs. When we chose Dr Said he sulked for the rest of the morning.

He was much given to emotional outbursts and violent, irrational behaviour; but above all he was paranoid. One morning he stood on a desk and asked us why we all hated him. No one said anything, but some of us began inching towards the door. Finally he lost his temper and began shouting and screaming. The sight of my tutor, red in the face and clearly drunk, shaking an enraged fist at his literature class was highly upsetting. "You think you can have a good laugh at my expense,” he bellowed. "But I make more in a week than you’ll see in your miserable lives. You make me sick.” Several minutes later we shuffled from the room in embarrassed silence. Hitchens lay crumpled in a heap on the floor and was sobbing uncontrollably.

Many people in the department ascribe his odd behaviour to drunkeness and encroaching senility. But they have missed the point: It's not the drink. It is my opinion that he crossed the frontier between eccentricity and full-blown psychosis some time ago, and should be relieved of his teaching duties before someone gets hurt."


:)
He's clearly barking mad...off with the pixies...a few tinnies short of a slab.
:D
 

Similar threads