Bush: U.S. 'At War With Islamic Fascists'

News Max ^ | Aug. 10, 2006 | NewsMax Staff

[conservativecorner]

President Bush said Thursday that a foiled plot to blow up multiple flights between Britain and the United States shows "this nation is at war with Islamic fascists."

"This country is safer than it was prior to 9-11," Bush said from the airport tarmac here where he was appearing at events focused on the economy. "We've taken a lot of measures to protect the American people but obviously we're not completely safe. ... It is a mistake to believe there is no threat to the United States of America."

The president laid the blame for the would-be attack squarely on al-Qaida-type terrorism.

"This nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation," he said, his remarks carried live on television.

[BW2221]

For years we were in the cold war against communism. Yet, we let communists organize, publish, teach at universities.

The key is to limit immigration of Muslims, particularly foreign-born imams.

[Dead Corpse]

"This nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation," he said, his remarks carried live on television.

Gee... ya' think?

How about doing somethign about that porous border then eh? Maybe have people get together in local efforts to help keep an eye on vital infrastructure with civilian based patrols? Maybe encourage everyone to ARM themselves as you never know when these chuckleheaded Jihadi's will cut up rough in your neighborhood?

Or is all that too damn easy, doesn't fit a One World Agenda, increase the Federal Payrole, or buy votes?

This is WAR. Let's start acting like it.

[BW2221]

Good point.

[AmericanInTokyo]

Sure. Go ahead. Be my guest!

[AmericanInTokyo]

Yes, he could have an effect. And a White House Staffer who knows for sure, one way or the other, is probably reading this thread right now.

[DTogo]

So think we're at war?

Where's the declaration, against who?

Why aren't divulgers of national secrets being prosecuted?

Why are our borders still unsecured?

Why are leaders of our enemies trotted to the White House and presented as peaceful, or walk hand-in-hand with the President?

Why are we still buying oil by the billion$ from our enemies, and not becoming energy independent?

If you're either with us or against us, what's happening to those against us? Nothing for many (Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc.)

[BW2221]

"Now, though - at last! - he is fully engaged - not just against Saddam and the Taliban and Osama, who were/are specific enemies. It's a much larger struggle. The President gets this."

Does this mean he's going to get serious about border security. I am shocked terrorists haven't brought nuclear weapons across?

[Spiff]

Unless this country stands as a whole we are doomed.

Then, we are doomed. Open treason is being committed in our streets and even in the halls of Congress. Not only are we NOT standing together, but a significant number of citizens and representatives stand AGAINST the United States and they make up a large demographic within the Treason Party (aka. Democrat Party).

[watchin]

What do you think about the ancient Aztec religion, in which they gathered up thousands of their enemies and cut their hearts out?

Condemning a whole race or ethnicity is ignorant, because race does not determine behavior or philosophy.

Condemning a whole religion is sometimes entirely rational, when it negatively shapes behavior and it is a fascist philosophy.

The more I read about the history of islam, the harder the distiction between "freaks" and the entire religion becomes.

[Sprite518]

Agree 100%. Good post!

[Sprite518]

Liberalism is a mental disorder...

[af_vet_rr]

So think we're at war?

Why aren't divulgers of national secrets being prosecuted?

Why are our borders still unsecured?

Why are leaders of our enemies trotted to the White House and presented as peaceful, or walk hand-in-hand with the President?

Why are we still buying oil by the billion$ from our enemies, and not becoming energy independent?

If you're either with us or against us, what's happening to those against us? Nothing for many (Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc.)

All very good points, which means you'll get flamed :-P

I've heard people try to justify certain things because "we're at war", whether it's their argument for reduced civil liberties (I have no idea why they are even at FR if they are going to make that argument to Conservatives) or more government power and more government growth, and I would love to hear how they address the fact that if we are at war, it's a war without end. In essence they want to increase the government size or power, or suspend this or that, or move to a "Papers please" society, permanently. That's what it boils down to.

Anything done by the American leadership, with "we're at war" as an excuse, means that it will become permanent, whether it's the PATRIOT Act or the National ID program (aka REAL ID). When you use a war without end to justify something, you are basically making it permanent.

[stripes1776]

I was shocked but genuinely pleased to hear the President state that "this nation is at war with Islamic fascists."
I always felt the words "war on terrorism" were too vague and didn't direct our efforts in the right direction.

Well, it only took Bush 5 years to get to the point and speak clearly. Yes, Islamic fascists are the enemy. Let's hope he stays on message now and repeats it often.

[karnage]

I think we'll get something on border security through Congress. It won't be everything we want, but it'll be better than nothing. Don't forget, President Bush was Governor of Texas for several years. I think he knows the border/immigration issue pretty well.

[IrishCatholic]

I don't really mind you not reading my posts, but twisting them around while being condescending is a little grating. So, let me post my point in its entirety and try again.



The problem with separating these terrorists from the entire religion is that the terrorists are not doing something outside the religious boundaries. They are, in fact, more loyal to the dogma of Islam than 'moderates'. The tenants of Islam decree that infidels should be conquered and converted or made subservient. So, since this is one of the main themes of Islam you cannot separate those who actually practice it in full and those that have let it slide into moderate or secular practice.
Islam as a whole has been at war with the West since it began. It will continue to do so until it is broken as it has been in the past. The only thing to note is that while Christianity and other religions are not united, Islam is. Should they ever stop killing each other long enough to be united under one flag, they have the potential to snuff out the rest of civilization. This is their goal. The president of Iran thinks he is the one. Time will tell.
I say that it is imperative to understand Islam as a whole is the enemy of freedom unless all of Islam denounces the segments of its religion that requires it to convert and allows its own members to convert to other religions. When there are churches in Saudi Arabia then the threat of Islam has faded.
Ann Coulter had it right.

There. I posted it again for you. That way instead of drive by comments you can consider it in full. Right after the segment you took out of context is: "Should they ever stop killing each other long enough to be united under one flag, they have the potential to snuff out civilization."

There. Now that makes your post seem rather immature and snotty. How about ditching the sarcasm and trying to address the focus of the point. The terrorists are not acting outside the tenants of Islam but rather fulfilling its desired goal. While Sunni and Shiite will kill each other, both would rather kill you and me and every other non muslim. Do you have anything constructive to contribute?

[GOPJ]

Was this stuff part of a larger Aug 22 terrorists blow-out? Is there more to come? Will the New York Times be pulled up for treason? We shall see...

[DTogo]

Well said! If we're "at war" then I want to fight to win it like we did in WWII, win it, and then move on to peaceful post-war re-construction and new/renewed friendships and alliances.

[steve-b]

That's the basic problem with the term "Islamic Fascists".

"Islamic Fundamentalists" is the most correct description. "Islamic Theocrats" also works, but is a bit more obscure.

[MarcusAurelious]

Someone pinch me. Bush actually used the terms "Islamic Fascists!"

[MarcusAurelious]

We are not fighting to win, we are fighting until we can be comfortable again.

What a way to fight a war.