10-15 Israelis held hostage in Mumbai
- they wanted British and Americans. But of course Jews are always a fine alternative for Islamists fascists.
Indian PM vows action on attacks
- Bush doctrine with an Indian twist.
That’s frightening, given what can happen to the phản động and all.
I may have missed a news report somewhere but has a group claimed responsibility for this yet? I’m failing to see where your “islamists fascists” bit is coming from.
Yes a group has claimed responsibility. Look up-thread. Although I personally doubt it is anything but an ad-hoc name invented for the occasion. I assume it is islamists because that is where all the leads are pointing. But who knows. It might be the damn Amish again.
Or the Quakers. God only knows what they hide under those hats.
Missed it on reading through the BBC’s pages;
“A group calling itself the Deccan Mujahideen has claimed responsibility for the attacks but little is known of it.” - link
…sorry about that!
Will be interesting to see what they claim their motivation for this is.
It’s those damn horse carts, never know what they’re hiding in those things! 
EDIT- I swear Lib’s post wasn’t there when I replied!
Right-wing hate radio. It’s a deeply, deeply stupid term but a useful signifier.
It certainly signifies the level and depth of thought of the speaker.
Quite.
Just as one could make the same sort of poor and completely uninformed argument regarding the conflicts between Hindus and Muslims in India or Hindus and Buddhists in Sri Lanka or Christians and Muslims in Sudan or the Philipines.
In the majority of these situations, just as in Northern Ireland, religion is nothing more than a cultural marker to identify where the lines are drawn. The actual conflict is over resources and power. bin Laden is an anomaly who has been able to capitalize on the fact that Muslims have gotten the short end of the stick in terms of wealth, resources, and power over the last 150 - 200 years and he is waving his religious banner to form alliances among disparate groups to gain mutual support.
You might want to look up the definition of irony some time.
yeah doh. Facists facist facist. You are certainly putting a lot of meaning into a single word, which might as well have been swapped for fuckhead or any other slur. Certainly speaks a lot that you guys feel like wasting three posts on sweet nothings. As for right-wing hate radio – nope haven’t got any of those around these parts. But I hear you have it over there in the last bastion of freedom and the leader of the free world.
So, basically, you acknowledge that you use words without regard to actual meanings simply for their evocative power as slurs. That would seem to indicate that we should simply ignore your posts, (or transfer them to the Pit), since you are not actually interested in a discussion, simply wanting to rant.
Go ahead. Knock yourself out. Because a single word is the sum and entirety of all my posts.
But since you insist on continuing this thread hijack, then the word “fascist” has long since been so misused to have been emptied of its original meaning and now just stand left as some kind of general slur, whereas “Islamists fascist” or “islamofascists” is generally understood to refer to something like extremists fanatic Islamists the like of al Qaeda or Taliban or whatever. But of course you already knew that and are only playing obtuse to make some kind of obscure point.
Look around. Stupid and/or ignorant people use the term Islamofacist. If you wanna throw it out you’re gonna be labeled by the company you keep.
A better, more nuanced question would be, do you have a cite that “Islamic Terror” is rooted in the religion as opposed to poverty, ignorance and political powerlessness?
It seems like Christians with poverty, ignorance and political powerlessness can do some heinous shit too.
Weren’t most of the 911 hijackers from Saudi Arabia? One of the richest countries on earth.
Saddam’s represive regime was removed by military force. It was not a religious attack nor was a new religion forced upon Iraqis. The violence you see in Iraq today is Muslim against Muslim terrorism. The people carrying it out are directed by mullahs such as Muqtada al-Sadr who have their own private army. It’s a very deadly game of “my version of the religion of peace is better than yours”.
Do you see Christian or Hindu leaders with private armies? Do you see the Bishop of Canterbury calling for world domination of Christian theology and laws? I see Abu Hamza al-Masri in the UK calling for Islamic rule of the country. I see Bin Laden and all the minions who support him espousing this garbage. I see Iran’s President calling for the destruction of Israel and the United States. I see a worldwide operation of terrorism in the name of Mohammed and the attacks in India are part of a list too long to mention in this thread.
You pretty much see what you look for.
And, in fact, most of them were from the middle class, not the poor.
However, there are two aspects to consider:
First, bin Laden is, indeed, running a religious campaign. He does tend to be motivated by some sort of religious fervor and employs religion to recruit others.
Second, Saudi Arabia may have great wealth, but that wealth is very much concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority and there is a strong belief among those who are not wealthy that the rich are holding onto their money and power solely because of the support of the U.S., giving bin Laden (who has been in conflict with the Saudi princes for a very long time), a visible target for his recruits to hate.
bin Laden, while prompted by his religious fervor, himself, is very willing to portray all of Islam as being under attack from the West in order to bring groups that are widely scattered across the world into a coalition that will work for him. Broad based attacks on Islam such as we have seen in this thread are very much in accord with his hopes.
Jihadism is not rooted in poverty. It is rooted in pride.