Breaking: Mass Shooting at Ft. Hood in Texas ... 7 confirmed dead

[The T]

Your reasoning is awesome! Wow! The way you countered the info in that post with a well thought out response was just amazing! Do you a class on how to do that?

Your glaring hypocrisy is also awesome. I "countered" your simplistic bombastic statement which YOU were perfectly willing to pronounce with NBO substantiation. but when the rebuttal is JUST as devoid of substantiation, THAT'S when it matters to you.

You hypocrites are all the same.

Besides, others here have already addressed the ignorance of your stupid position regarding "Islamofascism." It is not my fault that you are incapable of learning. Educably mentally retarded, that's you.

Religious fanatics view God as the highest authority.

Fascism views the State as the highest authority.

It's a pretty clear contradiction because you can't have atheism and a religion as both the highest authority.

Quite a dichotomy you seem to pose when BOTH beliefs are OK in this country as long as you don't try to IMPOSE those beliefs upon others by infringing upon the rights of either to belive what they will...

Now? What was your point again?

 

[The T]

Religious fanatics view God as the highest authority.

Fascism views the State as the highest authority.

It's a pretty clear contradiction because you can't have atheism and a religion as both the highest authority.

If a "Nation" is premised on the notion that God or Allah is the highest authority, and its laws are predicated on a particular religion's "rules," then such a theocracy can indeed be a fascist state.

Too bad you didn't take the suggestion made earlier (in the post by Cyborgmudhen); if you had done so, you wouldn't keep looking like such a complete imbecile, now.

If a nation is based on God as the highest authority then it is a Theocracy.

Then such a Government becomes a Fascist STATE, does it not? Is that what you are saying when it comes to This country? Is this an admonishon of the Founders when they chose to keep the Government's NOSE out of it, and prohibit that Government from making any LAW based upon religion?

Is that what you FEAR this Republic will become? Here we are 200+ years later after the death of the Founders, but we aren't there.

WHAT indeed IS your point? What IS your fear? What ARE you babbling about?

 

[CurveLight]

A totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life. The name was first used by the party started by Benito Mussolini , who ruled Italy from 1922 until the Italian defeat in World War II. However, it has also been applied to similar ideologies in other countries, e.g., to National Socialism in Germany and to the regime of Francisco Franco in Spain.
Fascism definition, origins, characteristics, fascist state, corporative state



*

 

[The T]

A totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life. The name was first used by the party started by Benito Mussolini , who ruled Italy from 1922 until the Italian defeat in World War II. However, it has also been applied to similar ideologies in other countries, e.g., to National Socialism in Germany and to the regime of Francisco Franco in Spain.
Fascism definition, origins, characteristics, fascist state, corporative state



*

OK...I understand the point...but what or whom were you specifically speaking?

Let me ask you? Is Iran a Theocracy? Is it LOADED with Fascists? Is it filled with totalinarism? Do you FEAR that the United States could become such a place? (By whatever means)?

Does Iran or other such place Have A Constitution that prohibits such things UNLESS by amendment or the people shirk their duty as citizens an ALLOW it to happen backdoor by their lack of responsibility?

 

[CurveLight]

If a "Nation" is premised on the notion that God or Allah is the highest authority, and its laws are predicated on a particular religion's "rules," then such a theocracy can indeed be a fascist state.

Too bad you didn't take the suggestion made earlier (in the post by Cyborgmudhen); if you had done so, you wouldn't keep looking like such a complete imbecile, now.

If a nation is based on God as the highest authority then it is a Theocracy.

Then such a Government becomes a Fascist STATE, does it not? Is that what you are saying when it comes to This country? Is this an admonishon of the Founders when they chose to keep the Government's NOSE out of it, and prohibit that Government from making any LAW based upon religion?

Is that what you FEAR this Republic will become? Here we are 200+ years later after the death of the Founders, but we aren't there.

WHAT indeed IS your point? What IS your fear? What ARE you babbling about?

No, a Theocracy does not become a fascist state. No, I do not fear our republic becoming a theocracy.

I've been pointing out why "islamofascism" is a contradiction and nonsensical term.

 

[The T]

If a nation is based on God as the highest authority then it is a Theocracy.

Then such a Government becomes a Fascist STATE, does it not? Is that what you are saying when it comes to This country? Is this an admonishon of the Founders when they chose to keep the Government's NOSE out of it, and prohibit that Government from making any LAW based upon religion?

Is that what you FEAR this Republic will become? Here we are 200+ years later after the death of the Founders, but we aren't there.

WHAT indeed IS your point? What IS your fear? What ARE you babbling about?

No, a Theocracy does not become a fascist state. No, I do not fear our republic becoming a theocracy.

I've been pointing out why "islamofascism" is a contradiction and nonsensical term.

I FAIL to see the contradiction when so many stories have come out with people over there being thrown in JAIL for voicing their opinion or even killed for it.

Are you SURE you want to take this stance?

 

[Liability]

Religious fanatics view God as the highest authority.

Fascism views the State as the highest authority.

It's a pretty clear contradiction because you can't have atheism and a religion as both the highest authority.

If a "Nation" is premised on the notion that God or Allah is the highest authority, and its laws are predicated on a particular religion's "rules," then such a theocracy can indeed be a fascist state.

Too bad you didn't take the suggestion made earlier (in the post by Cyborgmudhen); if you had done so, you wouldn't keep looking like such a complete imbecile, now.

If a nation is based on God as the highest authority then it is a Theocracy.

Yes. I know. It is your suppressed (and absurd and baseless) premise that a theocracy cannot be a fascist state.

I say you are flatly wrong and will never under any circumstances ever be able to support your position.

By contrast, I rebut you by making the exact opposite claim: there is no reason why some absolutist form of theocracy cannot be a fascist state.

Now, since you are the proponent of your silly contention, you have the burden. SO, proceed to explain and demonstrate that because a state is theocratic it is incapable of being a fascist state.

Go.

 

[CurveLight]

Then such a Government becomes a Fascist STATE, does it not? Is that what you are saying when it comes to This country? Is this an admonishon of the Founders when they chose to keep the Government's NOSE out of it, and prohibit that Government from making any LAW based upon religion?

Is that what you FEAR this Republic will become? Here we are 200+ years later after the death of the Founders, but we aren't there.

WHAT indeed IS your point? What IS your fear? What ARE you babbling about?

No, a Theocracy does not become a fascist state. No, I do not fear our republic becoming a theocracy.

I've been pointing out why "islamofascism" is a contradiction and nonsensical term.

I FAIL to see the contradiction when so many stories have come out with people over there being thrown in JAIL for voicing their opinion or even killed for it.

Are you SURE you want to take this stance?

Saudi Arabia is a Theocracy. When the Mutawwa'in made schoolgirls burn to death their reason was following Sharia Law.
BBC News | MIDDLE EAST | Saudi police 'stopped' fire rescue
(don't it make ya feel all warm and fuzzy knowing SA is one of our closest allies?)


That is not Fascism. The two systems may have some similarities in how ridiculously strict they apply rules and laws but to say a Theocracy is a "fascist" state is to demonstrate ignorance. If someone is thrown in jail for voicing an opinion nobody can automatically say it was because of a Fascist State. One must first look at what type of government it has. In Iraq, we have set up an Islamic Theocracy and this has put women in a poor position. They now have less freedom than when Saddam was there but it is not because of a Fascist State....it is because of a Theocracy.

 

[CurveLight]

If a "Nation" is premised on the notion that God or Allah is the highest authority, and its laws are predicated on a particular religion's "rules," then such a theocracy can indeed be a fascist state.

Too bad you didn't take the suggestion made earlier (in the post by Cyborgmudhen); if you had done so, you wouldn't keep looking like such a complete imbecile, now.

If a nation is based on God as the highest authority then it is a Theocracy.

Yes. I know. It is your suppressed (and absurd and baseless) premise that a theocracy cannot be a fascist state.

I say you are flatly wrong and will never under any circumstances ever be able to support your position.

By contrast, I rebut you by making the exact opposite claim: there is no reason why some absolutist form of theocracy cannot be a fascist state.

Now, since you are the proponent of your silly contention, you have the burden. SO, proceed to explain and demonstrate that because a state is theocratic it is incapable of being a fascist state.

Go.

If a State is Theocratic it is impossible to simultaneously be a Fascist State because if God is the highest authority then the State cannot be. Please look above and read the link that defines Fascism.

 

[Liability]

If a nation is based on God as the highest authority then it is a Theocracy.

Yes. I know. It is your suppressed (and absurd and baseless) premise that a theocracy cannot be a fascist state.

I say you are flatly wrong and will never under any circumstances ever be able to support your position.

By contrast, I rebut you by making the exact opposite claim: there is no reason why some absolutist form of theocracy cannot be a fascist state.

Now, since you are the proponent of your silly contention, you have the burden. SO, proceed to explain and demonstrate that because a state is theocratic it is incapable of being a fascist state.

Go.

If a State is Theocratic it is impossible to simultaneously be a Fascist State because if God is the highest authority then the State cannot be. Please look above and read the link that defines Fascism.

Wrong, as I knew you would be.

It is your extremely weak and severely limited comprehension of the meaning of "fascist" that is undermining your ability to address the question.

You might want to START (not finish, mind you; just START) by getting yourself familiar with the actual political defintions of "fascism." There are many and they do not all agree with each other.

But if one goes to the liberoidal bible known as Wiki (the wiki dictionary, for example) one may find a useful point of departure:

A political regime, having totalitarian aspirations, ideologically based on centralized government, government control of business, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights.

See: Wiktionary, the free dictionary

There is NO valid logical or rational reason to exclude a totalitarian, ideolgically based centralized government having governmental control over business, etc that is based on RELIGION. In fact, such a theocratic state, by definition, DOES tend to "exalt" religion over individual rights....

 

[CurveLight]

Yes. I know. It is your suppressed (and absurd and baseless) premise that a theocracy cannot be a fascist state.

I say you are flatly wrong and will never under any circumstances ever be able to support your position.

By contrast, I rebut you by making the exact opposite claim: there is no reason why some absolutist form of theocracy cannot be a fascist state.

Now, since you are the proponent of your silly contention, you have the burden. SO, proceed to explain and demonstrate that because a state is theocratic it is incapable of being a fascist state.

Go.

If a State is Theocratic it is impossible to simultaneously be a Fascist State because if God is the highest authority then the State cannot be. Please look above and read the link that defines Fascism.

Wrong, as I knew you would be.

It is your extremely weak and severely limited comprehension of the meaning of "fascist" that is undermining your ability to address the question.

You might want to START (not finish, mind you; just START) by getting yourself familiar with the actual political defintions of "fascism." There are many and they do not all agree with each other.

But if one goes to the liberoidal bible known as Wiki (the wiki dictionary, for example) one may find a useful point of departure:

A political regime, having totalitarian aspirations, ideologically based on centralized government, government control of business, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights.

See: Wiktionary, the free dictionary

There is NO valid logical or rational reason to exclude a totalitarian, ideolgically based centralized government having governmental control over business, etc that is based on RELIGION. In fact, such a theocratic state, by definition, DOES tend to "exalt" religion over individual rights....

You seem to have ignored the link above that both defines and gives the history of Fascism and you want to point to wiki? Lol

 

[Liability]

If a State is Theocratic it is impossible to simultaneously be a Fascist State because if God is the highest authority then the State cannot be. Please look above and read the link that defines Fascism.

Wrong, as I knew you would be.

It is your extremely weak and severely limited comprehension of the meaning of "fascist" that is undermining your ability to address the question.

You might want to START (not finish, mind you; just START) by getting yourself familiar with the actual political defintions of "fascism." There are many and they do not all agree with each other.

But if one goes to the liberoidal bible known as Wiki (the wiki dictionary, for example) one may find a useful point of departure:

A political regime, having totalitarian aspirations, ideologically based on centralized government, government control of business, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights.

See: Wiktionary, the free dictionary

There is NO valid logical or rational reason to exclude a totalitarian, ideolgically based centralized government having governmental control over business, etc that is based on RELIGION. In fact, such a theocratic state, by definition, DOES tend to "exalt" religion over individual rights....

You seem to have ignored the link above that both defines and gives the history of Fascism and you want to point to wiki? Lol

Sorry silly child, but as I correctly and sagely noted, not all definitions agree with each other.

You are married to just one because it says what you wnat for it to say.

So, we learn that you lack objectivity.

No news in that.

Fascism, once again, has a multitude of meanings. And while I often mock Wikie (for good reason), it can be an ok point of departure.

Your desired definition of fascism is WAY too limited and it's not generally accepted and it is basically in error.

You might want to start by taking a peek outside our own closed mind:

fas·cism (fshzm)
n.
1. often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

fascism - definition of fascism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Then, perhaps, you can graduate to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

politics
Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the state’s authority, and harsh suppression of dissent.

fascism (politics) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

And once again we see NOTHING that requires that the totalitarian nature not be BASED on a particular religion. There is nothing in ANY valid definition that says a theocracy cannot be fascist, as we see with the ******* Taliban, for example.

In short, as already pointed out to you, just because your "mind" is firmly welded shut does NOT mean that you are correct or that you have the capacity to meaningfully defend your position.

You remain a singular failure.

Thank me. Thank me very much.

 

[Coyote]

Come off it, leftwingnuter. Yelling "allah akbar" under those circumstances has a meaning it is silly to try to deny.

Good grief. You make yourself seem quite silly arguing such a silly position.

Is it possible that Hassan was nothing but a ******* nutbar and that his actions had nothing to do with Islamist fanatacism? Yes. But under all of the circumstances, including the phrase he yelled out just before the shooting, it is not all that terribly likely.

Actually, FBI investigators aren't sure Hasan really did say those words before he started shooting - they haven't been able to confirm it. It may just be that in the mayhem of the moment, some of the people imagined it.

Of course. It was probably some other guy yelling out "Allah Akbar!" just before HAssan started shooting people on a U.S. Military base in Texas....

Of course. Or, maybe no one yelled it, at all. There was a lot of misinformation in the beginning - 1 shooter, 2 then 3 then 1 again. Who it was - was he military etc etc. Systematically, they can track down the details. All I'm saying is they've been unable to confirm that he - or anyone - yelled "Allah Akbar".

Too bad when facts get in the way of an old fashioned lynching.

 

[Liability]

Actually, FBI investigators aren't sure Hasan really did say those words before he started shooting - they haven't been able to confirm it. It may just be that in the mayhem of the moment, some of the people imagined it.

Of course. It was probably some other guy yelling out "Allah Akbar!" just before HAssan started shooting people on a U.S. Military base in Texas....

Of course. Or, maybe no one yelled it, at all. There was a lot of misinformation in the beginning - 1 shooter, 2 then 3 then 1 again. Who it was - was he military etc etc. Systematically, they can track down the details. All I'm saying is they've been unable to confirm that he - or anyone - yelled "Allah Akbar".

Too bad when facts get in the way of an old fashioned lynching.

Facts? You mean like when you speculate that ear-witnesses maybe didn't hear what they said they heard when they were there at that time and you and I weren't?

Those kind of "facts?"

 

[AllieBaba]

I think it's been established he was yelling Allahu Akbar when he was blowing holes into peoples' heads.

The rest, there's always misinformation at the beginning of a situation like this, when they haven't yet apprehended the dude. It's signinficant of nothing.

 

[Cyborgmudhen]

Curve,

We'll have to agree to disagree. Your degree of comfort in playing with words while ignoring reality, while sorta amusing, is also a bit scary.

Coyote,
Just what is it that YOU know about lynching ? Curious......

 

[The T]

Wrong, as I knew you would be.

It is your extremely weak and severely limited comprehension of the meaning of "fascist" that is undermining your ability to address the question.

You might want to START (not finish, mind you; just START) by getting yourself familiar with the actual political defintions of "fascism." There are many and they do not all agree with each other.

But if one goes to the liberoidal bible known as Wiki (the wiki dictionary, for example) one may find a useful point of departure: See: Wiktionary, the free dictionary

There is NO valid logical or rational reason to exclude a totalitarian, ideolgically based centralized government having governmental control over business, etc that is based on RELIGION. In fact, such a theocratic state, by definition, DOES tend to "exalt" religion over individual rights....

You seem to have ignored the link above that both defines and gives the history of Fascism and you want to point to wiki? Lol

Sorry silly child, but as I correctly and sagely noted, not all definitions agree with each other.

You are married to just one because it says what you wnat for it to say.

So, we learn that you lack objectivity.

No news in that.

Fascism, once again, has a multitude of meanings. And while I often mock Wikie (for good reason), it can be an ok point of departure.

Your desired definition of fascism is WAY too limited and it's not generally accepted and it is basically in error.

You might want to start by taking a peek outside our own closed mind:

fas·cism (fshzm)
n.
1. often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

fascism - definition of fascism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Then, perhaps, you can graduate to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

politics
Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the state’s authority, and harsh suppression of dissent.

fascism (politics) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

And once again we see NOTHING that requires that the totalitarian nature not be BASED on a particular religion. There is nothing in ANY valid definition that says a theocracy cannot be fascist, as we see with the ******* Taliban, for example.

In short, as already pointed out to you, just because your "mind" is firmly welded shut does NOT mean that you are correct or that you have the capacity to meaningfully defend your position.

You remain a singular failure.

Thank me. Thank me very much.

I'm glad that you took the time to put this one to bed, because frankly? I was getting a headache from it. I rarely wade in muddied waters as I had done when I asked if they really wanted to take that stance...but sheesh!

it was getting so convoluted it was getting subliminally comical?

Good form as always.

 

[Coyote]

Curve,
The eyewitness accounts of 'allahu akbar' were public knowledge the day of the shooting. LTG Cone even put it out.
Not sure why it matters so much, but there it is.

According to this article, Cone could not confirm it:

General Robert Cone, the base commander, said officials had not yet confirmed that the suspected gunman made the comment before the rampage which left 30 people wounded, including Hasan.​

 

[Coyote]

Curve,

We'll have to agree to disagree. Your degree of comfort in playing with words while ignoring reality, while sorta amusing, is also a bit scary.

Coyote,
Just what is it that YOU know about lynching ? Curious......

I know enough history, and I know how mob mentalities can work - and how quickly people can turn to picking out scapegoats. That's why I think it's important to be accurate when making claims that can turn people against other people with out thinking things through.

(But, I was playing fast and loose with the term "lynch mob")

 

[Cyborgmudhen]

Coyote,
No worries, just hadta ask.
I appreciate your efforts, actually, to keep the 'mob' mentality from taking over. Any call to think rather than 'join' is one that is worthy to be made !
This time, however, it's pretty cut and dried.
Once Hasan is drained of any/ all value as an intel asset, 'it' (as in Hasan) should be immediately killed.