Naaa, no Islamofascist goal here

[sirs]

They're just flappin at the gums, with no other intentions, outside of perhaps pointing out how inhumane Israelis are treating Palestinians.  No New World Islamic Order in these people's minds.  No sir-ree-bob

Al-Qaeda chiefs reveal world domination design
By Allan Hall
Age Correspondent
Berlin
August 24, 2005
 
THE al-Qaeda master plan to take over the world and turn it into an Islamic state has been revealed for the first time.

For a new book, Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein interviewed top lieutenants of the terrorist network, including the mastermind of many atrocities in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Al-Zarqawi — al-Qaeda's Second Generation is published only in Arabic, but could be translated into English.

Hussein says al-Qaeda views its struggle as a long-term war with seven distinct phases.

Phase one is the "awakening" in the consciousness of Muslims worldwide following the September 11, 2001, suicide attacks. The aim of the attacks was to provoke the US into declaring war on the Islamic world and thereby mobilising the radicals.

Phase two is "Opening Eyes", the period we are now in and which should last until 2006. Hussein says the terrorists hope to make the "Western conspiracy" aware of the "Islamic community" as al-Qaeda continues to mould its secret battalions ready for battle.

Phase three, "Arising and Standing Up", should last from 2007 to 2010, with increasingly frequent attacks against secular Turkey and arch-enemy Israel.

Phase four, between 2010 and 2013, will see the downfall of hated Arab regimes, including Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Oil suppliers will be attacked and the US economy will be targeted using cyber terrorism.

Phase five will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared — between 2013 and 2016.

Phase six, from 2016 on, will be a period of "total confrontation". As soon as the caliphate has been declared, the "Islamic army" will instigate the "fight between the believers and the non-believers" that has so often been predicted by al-Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden.

Phase seven, the final stage, is described as "definitive victory".

Hussein writes that in the terrorists' eyes, because the rest of the world will be so beaten down by the "One-and-a-half billion Muslims", the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war should not last longer than two years.


http://www.theage.com.au/news/war-on-terror/alqaeda-chiefs-reveal-world-domination-design/2005/08/23/1124562861654.html?oneclick=true

[Plane]

I hate to tell them this but most of the one and half billion Muslims are very poorly placed strategicly.

They will do better after they convert the leadership of China to Islam , but then the Chaphilate will be headquartered in Peking.

[Xavier_Onassis]

They will do better after they convert the leadership of China to Islam , but then the Chaphilate will be headquartered in Peking.

Sandpeople religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) are exclusivist, meaning one cannot be a believer in any one of them and anything else (Shinto, Buddhism, Tao) at the same time. They havre never been popular in China.

There is no chance that China will ever become an Islamic nation. No one who knows the Chinese or Islam will believe that this is possible.

[Universe Prince]

Naaa, no Islamofascist goal here

No, this still doesn't make them fascists. Yes, they are bad people who want to conquer the world, but that isn't enough to make them fascists.

[sirs]

No, this still doesn't make them fascists. Yes, they are bad people who want to conquer the world, but that isn't enough to make them fascists.

Of course not.  That'd be just too damn logical & convenient.  Especially when one's mind is made up.  Of course it was never argued that that NWO goal in and of itself was the only measure of their fascist agenda, but let me not get in the way of logical deductions       

[Universe Prince]

No, this still doesn't make them fascists. Yes, they are bad people who want to conquer the world, but that isn't enough to make them fascists.

Of course not.  That'd be just too damn logical & convenient.

The terrorists as fascists idea might be convenient for some, and it might even be logical depending on one's premises, but that doesn't mean it is correct.

Especially when one's mind is made up.

You sure you want to go there?

Of course it was never argued that that NWO goal in and of itself was the only measure of their fascist agenda,

No, but you clearly presented it as evidence thereof, via your sarcastic subject line. But it really isn't a measure at all of whether or not someone or some group is fascist.

but let me not get in the way of logical deductions

Now, now, no need to be snippy.

[sirs]

The terrorists as fascists idea might be convenient for some, and it might even be logical depending on one's premises, but that doesn't mean it is correct

Yea, and you could be an Oakland native, and believe that the Athletics are a better team than the Tigers, but that doesn't mean it's correct either

You sure you want to go there?

Just making an observation.  It just seems that despite the ample circumstantial evidence provided that could easily be deduced as X, but someone keeps saying it's Y, does tend to make be believe that indeed their mind is made up.  And the ironic thing is that your commentary early on played a large part in helping to form my conclusions on this subject.  Go figure

you clearly presented it as evidence thereof, via your sarcastic subject line

One of many, if you hadn't noticed

[Michael Tee]

The ideal of world domination is about the only common ground between fascism and al Zarqawi, and even there the comparison is shaky.  Only German fascism aspired to world domination, the Spanish and Italian brands were content with Mediterranean and African empires.

The religious intolerance of al Zarqawi is fundamentally different from the racial intolerance of the Nazis or the ethnic supremacy theories of Italian fascism.

The theocratic nature of al Zarqawi's Caliphate is also fundamentally different from the "Fuhrer principle" by which fascist society would be led, essentially a one-man dictatorship, the dictator possessing in the fullest degree the most virtuous quality of the "race" or "people" that he was the leader of.

A new caliphate would still have to acknowledge the supremacy of God and the message of his Prophet, whereas a fascist dictatorship would probably consider the survival and well-being of the nation as the highest good.

And I have never yet heard of an Islamic fundamentalist, even a Holocaust denier, who advocates physically exterminating an entire race of people.

World domination was a characteristic wish of people from the time of Alexander the Great to Adolf Hitler and can be found in one form or another in Communism, National Socialism (Naziism,) Christianity and Islam.  It is not a defining characteristic of any particular religion or political party.

Al Zarqawi's views are certainly bizarre and unrealistic but they are NOT fascism.  Apart from world domination (and a certain loss of basic fundamental freedoms of speech) there is very little in common between this form of Islamic fundamentalism and "fascism."  I would think that Zarqawi is probably closer ideologically to the Christian fundamentalists than he is to the fascists.

[sirs]

The religious intolerance of al Zarqawi is fundamentally different from the racial intolerance of the Nazis or the ethnic supremacy theories of Italian fascism.  The theocratic nature of al Zarqawi's Caliphate is also fundamentally different from the "Fuhrer principle" by which fascist society would be led, essentially a one-man dictatorship, the dictator possessing in the fullest degree the most virtuous quality of the "race" or "people" that he was the leader of.  A new caliphate would still have to acknowledge the supremacy of God and the message of his Prophet, whereas a fascist dictatorship would probably consider the survival and well-being of the nation as the highest good.

One more time, no one that I'm aware of is claiming that Islamofascism & Germany's fascism are supposedly identical, or that Islamofascists are attempting to emmulate Hitler's nazis.  So, subtle differences are to be expected

oy

And I have never yet heard of an Islamic fundamentalist, even a Holocaust denier, who advocates physically exterminating an entire race of people.

That's because it's not focused so much on the extermination of any race as it is their religion.  The "convert or die" thought process should have been a dead give away, pardon the pun.  Again, a subtle difference, when trying to compare the 2.  Though Iran's President does come to the closest at advocating the entire destruction of Israel, not to mention the platform of Hamas & Hezbollah

[Michael Tee]

<<One more time, no one that I'm aware of is claiming that Islamofascism & Germany's fascism are supposedly identical, or that Islamofascists are attempting to emmulate Hitler's nazis.  So, subtle differences are to be expected>>

These aren't "subtle differences."  The two ideologies are almost totally different on every point of comparison.  They share only two common points and the two that they share are common to many other belief systems as well.


<<Though Iran's President does come to the closest at advocating the entire destruction of Israel, not to mention the platform of Hamas & Hezbollah>>

None of them advocate the physical destruction of the people.  At most, some of them advocate a single-state solution with the Arab refugees being allowed to return to the land and everyone who arrived after a certain date being expelled (i.e. expulsion of recent Jewish immigrants)  and then all the inhabitants voting together for a government.  This is the end of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people (which I would not want to see happen) but it is not the extermination of the Israeli Jews or of the Jews in general.

[sirs]

These aren't "subtle differences."

Yes, they are.  With the chief difference being the focus on religion instead of race.  Outside of that, the differences are subtle, but concedingly present

None of them Iran's President does come to the closest at advocating the entire destruction of Israel, not to mention the platform of Hamas & Hezbollah) advocate the physical destruction of the people.

I'm just going to have to chalk that one up to acute fatigue on your part.  Perhaps that hike took too much out of you.  Best get some sleep, Tee

[Universe Prince]

The terrorists as fascists idea might be convenient for some, and it might even be logical depending on one's premises, but that doesn't mean it is correct

Yea, and you could be an Oakland native, and believe that the Athletics are a better team than the Tigers, but that doesn't mean it's correct either

Apples and oranges.

It just seems that despite the ample circumstantial evidence provided that could easily be deduced as X, but someone keeps saying it's Y, does tend to make be believe that indeed their mind is made up.

Perhaps because your mind is already made up.

And the ironic thing is that your commentary early on played a large part in helping to form my conclusions on this subject.  Go figure

It is indeed ironic because I was willing to recognize that I was wrong.

[sirs]

Apples and oranges.

Of course.  One's germain to Pro Baseball, the other to a global governance agenda.  Conceptual comparison is accurate however.  Just because you say so, doesn't mean you're correct

Perhaps because your mind is already made up.

ha ha ha, how come I knew you were going to flip it.

It is indeed ironic because I was willing to recognize that I was wrong.

And here I am willing to acknowledge you were right in the 1st place.  Go figure.  I'm sensing your shift in such a prevous position occured around the same time the Iraqi war got into full gear.  If so, interesting coincidence, doncha think?

[Universe Prince]

One's germain to Pro Baseball, the other to a global governance agenda.  Conceptual comparison is accurate however.  Just because you say so, doesn't mean you're correct

You must have a more flexible concept of 'accurate' than I do.

ha ha ha, how come I knew you were going to flip it.

I have no idea. How did you know?

And here I am willing to acknowledge you were right in the 1st place.  Go figure.

Yeah. Whatever.

I'm sensing your shift in such a prevous position occured around the same time the Iraqi war got into full gear.  If so, interesting coincidence, doncha think?

I don't know what time you think that was or why it would be interesting. But then conversations with you have become confusing. If you say something and I say the same thing back to you, I've misrepresented your opinion; and there is something wrong with me if I admit I was wrong because you think I was right; and your comparisons seem flawed, but you keep saying they're accurate. I must be really stupid because I am apparently unable to comprehend your wisdom.

[sirs]

You must have a more flexible concept of 'accurate' than I do.

Wasn't looking so much for "accurate" as "comparable"

I have no idea. How did you know?

Common tactic in the saloon.  Take an accusation/claim/whatever person X is saying of person/issue Y, then flip it as if in the response to apply it to themselves.  You knew I wasn't referencing myself, but then applied it to me anyways.  We all use it, you and I included

I don't know what time you think that was or why it would be interesting. But then conversations with you have become confusing

Just making general observations.  I recall before the war, but after 911, you were quite convinced (and rightly so), of the potential threat Usama & Militant Islam posed to this world.  Then after we entered Iraq, a person who's not fond of war at all nor increasing "Government intrusion" (and a perfectly reasonable position I might add) apparently changed gears, and no longer gave the threat the validity and seriousness that you originally had given it.  I can't help but hypothesize your disgust of the war and the actions of the Bush Government has perhaps tainted your once brilliant deductions on the threat that Militant Islam is.  Jst MHO though

If you say something and I say the same thing back to you, I've misrepresented your opinion

Still waiting for that to actually happen.  In the mean time, as articulate as you've tried to be, you have yet to convince me that this threat Islamofascists/Militant Islam is is no real biggie any longer, and that the supposed greater threat is that of our own Government, "in the name of security".