'Fascism, Anyone?' article points out some scary signs!! !

Post Reply New Topic

Im pretty sure the dictionary definition of terrorism is something like "fighting a goverment in the name of an ideal" - so are you saying in these cases you think its ALLWAYS the goverment thats rite?

Yes. Warfare is what its called when goverments fight it out, terrorism is what its called when its civilian militants

He actaully said that? Thats as good as admitting, strate out, that America IS a fascist state. Coming even from a supporter of the regime, that pretty much proves the point...

Last edited by Assassin on 04 Nov 2005, 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It rings a bell that Ive allreddy replied to this post, but that sounds extremely close to fascism

I hate to say it, but Sean was probably right, at least in that they'll try. Fascist governments generally try to remove those preaching any sort of opposition, paticularly armed opposition.

In these cases, irrespective of whether you have a chance, or are likely to get slautered, you still have to fite (allthogh i woodnt hold it against anyone who didnt, becos life is a very precious thing, i just see freedom as more precious and could never live with myself if i didnt do everything in my power to keep it)

I never wrote that.

By the way, Assassin, nineteen of the last twenty-three posts on this thread have been made by you.
Is this some sort of WrongPlanet record?

I wasn't implying that in a fascist state all the people would genuinely support their government or its war efforts. But the people wouldn't have the freedom to publicly oppose their government (by, say, voting in elections or writing articles in the free press), whereas this is not the case in America.
In a fascist state where the government controls the media and suppresses freedom of speech, "identification of scapegoats" can work as a unifying cause. In America, a free and democratic country, a far-off war can easily have the exact opposite effect, because it saves leftists a lot of trouble by giving them another stick to beat the government with. Now leftists can simply claim that Bush went to war to divert people's attention away from the problems at home, without saying anything specific about those problems themselves. For example:

Imagine if the Bush administration hadn't gone to war. People complaining about all the poor neighbourhoods in America wouldn't sound in itself a convincing anti-Bush argument, because it doesn't consider why the neighbourhoods are poor, nor suggest what should be done about it.

Now consider the actual situation. The Bush administration did go to war. Now people can say, "Thousands of Americans are living in poverty, and the Bush administration would rather spend money on a war on the other side of the world". And this argument is apparently enough for some people.

(Or if that's not enough, people can always claim "it's all about oil" or "it's all about protecting Israel". Hey, maybe it's a combination of all three! For good measure, why don't we add the Taliban, the Illuminati, Area 51 and the Knights Templar to the Halliburton/Zionism mix!)

And yes, I did read Britt's explanation. Although the first line spoke of "identification of enemies / scapegoats", the emphasis in the next few sentences was very much on scapegoating rather than genuine enemies. I actually think the word "identification" is not wholly accurate, because in the name of diplomacy the coalition governments are doing their best not to spell out who exactly the enemy is, so no wonder so many people underestimate the threat.
This is a totally bizarre situation. We're in the middle of a war on terror, but no one wants to say who the terrorists are or what they're fighting for. The terrorists are Islamic Fundamentalism: people killing in the name of Islam. If this fact is ever acknowledged at all, it is usually followed by the public being told that these people are somehow not real Muslims and that they have misinterpreted Islam.
This is nonsense, because the whole point of any sort of religious fundamentalism is to take scripture literally and not adapt to modernity.

As a Brit I can safely say that, in practice, if anyone is being prevented from speaking out in Britain today, it's not the anti-war brigade but people who tell the truth about Islamic terrorism.

That include America?

Im not saying that as a fact i was saying i woodnt be suprised if it was the case.

I say again - i wasnt saying that was a definate fact, just a distinct possibility.

If you cant reply to what Im actaully SAYING, then there reelly isnt much point in saying ANYTHING

The Taliban no longer exist, and I cant see any connection to the possible Knights of Templar or Area 51, but there's a very real possibility that the Illuminati could be involved

They do their best not to spell out who the actual enemy is because there is no "actual enemy", just any countries that have shaky relations with ours and lots of oil

Well, they try, but theres just to many of us for them

Deleted

Last edited by Ante on 09 Nov 2005, 8:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.