egafd.com

I've heard everything now.

The right wing, neo-Nazi, Christian fundamentalist, Muslim-hating branch of al Qaeda.

Quite a difficult sell to their differing constituencies I would have thought.

Cheers
D

Not as difficult as you might think. 'Your enemy is my enemy.' As Churchill said, 'If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons. ...'

Besides, when has a terrorist/revolutionary movement ever had more than a passing regard for the views of their 'constituents'?

"Besides, when has a terrorist/revolutionary movement ever had more than a passing regard for the views of their 'constituents'?"

By constituents I mean their active members who support the group. Given this guy seemed to find it quite funny slaughtering 90 kids, of course, anything is possible.

However the idea that a Christian fundamentalist who hated Muslims and felt that these two religions could not share a country should join with al Qaeda, a group wanting a world wide Islamic theocracy strikes me as extremely unlikely.

A bit like the BNP going into alliance with the Anti-Nazi League. Their active supporters or "constituencies" might have problems with that.

Or indeed American spooks blowing up the Twin Towers, Andy?

Cheers
D

mrmcfister wrote:

>>

But mcfister - he has "human rights", don'tcha know?!

- Eric

Perhaps not quite as far fetched.

The biggest enemy to a religious fundmentalist is not the religious fundamentalist of a different persuasion, it is secular society, people who do not give a monkey's about religion. From their POV a different branch of fundamentialism is only an external thread, secular society is a potential cancer undermining their religion from within.

Hi
I understand where you are coming from. But Andy's point appeared to be around the specifics of Christian fundamentalists forming alliances with "Islamo-fascists".

"Though it appears that this attack was by a white, far right-wing, christian fundamentalist, there is an emerging convergence between such people and the Islamo-fascists".

In reply I can only reiterate what I posted elsewhere,

"However the idea that a Christian fundamentalist who hated Muslims and felt that these two religions could not share a country should join with al Qaeda, a group wanting a world wide Islamic theocracy strikes me as extremely unlikely."

The very reason this guy attacked the political establishment was that he believed they had betrayed the nation in giving in to what he perceived as an ongoing colonisation of Norway by Islam. Although the targets of this guy could easily have been an al Qaeda target, the reasoning behind that targetting is completely and utterly different: on the one side, an attack on those who have given in to Islamic colonisation; on the other, an attack on a country involved in Afghanistan and Libya.

There lies the weakness in the argument.

Cheers
D

I find it unlikely too that Islamists and Christian fundamentalists or plain Fascists would "join forces", Andy's claim of an emerging convergence is a much weaker one though.

For example, it can be a convergence of targets. Even the motivation can in such cases overlap - I recall not too long ago that Islamists would consider targeting a Western night-club as an emblem of Western amorality, and if that night-club was also frequented by secular Muslims then so much the better. That same establishment might be a target for the home-grown right for not altogether different reasons.

I was reminded of two such common-enemy scenarios of opposing extremism in the past. One is Northern Ireland, where any kind of institution or individual that promoted integration was a potential target for either extreme of the spectrum. The other was the Weimar Republic - in its dieing days there was a certain convergence of both targets and methods between communists and fascists, e.g. both had their stormtroopers.

That such opposites of the spectrum ever actively work together is rare, though not unheard of, e.g. there was the Hitler-Stalin pact in WW2. And, yes, I know I lost the argument for the mere mentioning of any of that...

Hi

" find it unlikely too that Islamists and Christian fundamentalists or plain Fascists would "join forces", Andy's claim of an emerging convergence is a much weaker one though."

You have, I feel, misinterpreted Andy's comment.

Andy referenced in his original post, a quote from a document for which he provides a link.

"...the immediate urgency of a shared enemy can
sometimes take precedence over long-term differences between two seemingly opposing groups, arguing that this is now the case for certain factions within the far right and radical Islamic movements.'

The above implies two groups with long-term differences working together against a shared enemy. It is this which I find so unlikely as do you, when you state "I find it unlikely too that Islamists and Christian fundamentalists or plain Fascists would "join forces". Well it is exactly this which is implied in the document referenced.

"For example, it can be a convergence of targets."

Of course, I have already accepted that.

Cheers
D

Behind every (supposedly) politically motivated mass murder there's an ex-Fox commentator who will make you feel unclean listening to them.



Cant but agree with the critic in the video that Beck is utterly beneath contempt.