Why are people offended by the term "Islamic fascists"?
 

Here is the article from MSN:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14319984/

I usually despise Bush, but I have to defend him this time. "Islamic fascists" is a very accurate term to describe these terrorists. They are Islamic, and they are trying to spread a form of dictatorship that is based on religion and nationalism and racism. So why are the innocent people, the Muslims that do not fit into the group, offended by such terminology?

I say "If the shoe fits" . . . In this case, it does, by definition!

I think the current administration remarking on anyone else's fascist values is the pot calling the kettle black.

Also, how exactly are they trying to spread a dictatorship based on racism? Religion, sure, Nationalism, okay, but race doesn't really come into it. Islam accepts converts from all backgrounds.

Because every brown person that looks at us crook-eyed is an islamic facist. Gitmo is stuffed with islamofacists, for instance.

It's a slur, Patty. By definition bad black people are niggers but you don't get to be shocked when folks take ill to its use.

dumbest ni--ah, nevermind

Race comes into it because, for whatever reason, the Jewish people are considered a race. I don't know why, that's just how it is, and the biggest nemesis of the terrorists is Israel, the literal "country of Jews".

Oh, and yes, I realize this country has plenty of fascist values, but that doesn't really make the term any less true, does it? Not all of us support our government, remember.

Huh? Did you forget how to read, or do you just like antagonizing me? The term refers specifically to a select group of people, the group that others call a fanatic section of the Islamic faith. Now while that is just as accurate a description, how is "Islamic fascist" not accurate? They fit the term by definition. It has nothing to do with skin color, it has to do with the fact that the terrorists are a fanatic section of the Islamic faith trying to push their religion on the entirety of the world using violence as their primary weapon. By all definitions, they are fascists, hence "Islamic fascists".

How is it a slur? There is no relationship between the term "Islamic fascist" and the term "nigger", none. "Islamic fascist" is a term being used to describe the terrorists running rampant across the globe, it's not being used to describe all Muslims in general.

Why would a normal law-abiding and good Muslim be bothered by terrorists being called "Islamic fascists"? I'm not offended when white serial killers are called murdering psychopaths, as I'm not part of that group. The same should go for Muslims who are not part of the terrorist group, as neither they nor other good-natured Muslims being called by this term.

How about you read the article I posted and do a little homework, so that you're more informed the next time you decide to speak, hmmm?

Right back at you, retarded piece of sh--ah, nevermind

'muslim fascists' is a more appropriate term. 'islamic fascists' is NOT an accurate term to describe terrorists, if anything it's an oxymoron because what they are doing (or trying to do) is not islamic. it would be better (although i still find it distasteful) to call them muslim fascists because then you are not tainting the religion and everyone that follows it (the vast majority of peaceful muslims included). you need to learn to differentiate between a religion and what followers of a religion choose to do. the media never refers to israelis who oppress and murder innocent palestinians as 'jewish fascists/terrorists', so why do it to muslims? and before you try to argue that what the israelis are doing has nothing to do with religion, allow me to point out the fact that they chose to occupy palestine because they see it as their holy land, so it has everything to do with religion. and before you try to argue that what they are doing is islamic, please go and read the Qura'an from cover to cover as i have the feeling that you are very ignorant about this religion.

Double Post:
oh dear. based on your reasoning and arguments, you don't come across as being very intelligent. if white serial killers were referred to as 'white psychopaths' or 'american psychopaths' in the media i guarantee you would be offended.

decent muslims are, however, part of something called islam, and by using the term 'islamic fascist' you are associating them with fascism.

So, what you're saying is that your problem with "Islamic fascists" is that it uses the wrong adjective for describing someong or something of the Muslim faith?

This would create a problem for English speakers, since in English "Muslim" and "Islamic" can be used interchangeably.

And niggers refer to bad black people, who are niggers by the very definition of the word. I know that linear thought is beyond you but

if a word is offensive to a lot of people and part of its definition is a subjective, negative quality (go ahead and define islamofacists who have not committed terrorism. Do they not exist?) then yes it is a slur by definition.

Are you telling me that islamofacist has never been used indiscriminately? Really.

they cannot be used interchangeably. for example, let's say that you have a muslim who believes in his faith but who is a bad muslim because he likes a bit of bacon and a bud every now and again. to say to this person that he is islamic would be completely wrong, because according to the code of conduct in islam all muslims are prohibited from eating pigs and drinking alcohol. he doesn't cease being a muslim because he is violating islamic rules, he's just a bad muslim. to call him islamic would mean that all those muslims who do abide by the rules are no better than him because they're being labeled with the same tag.

Theory: they cannot be used interchangeably.
Disproof: All News Articles of the last five years, esp. Fox.

It's more accurate to describe them as Islamo-Revolutionaries, since their immediate goal is to reverse "modernizing" influences in Islam, and enforce a base fundamentalism. The establishment of a Caliphate would also be pretty keen to these dudes.

Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Mullahs are more Islamo-Fascists since they're more interested in using Islam to create a totalitarian political elite.

Generalized statements like this which instill nebulous fear without specific information are exactly in line with the goals of terrorism.

http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archi...08/081006.html

QFT!

Last I checked, "Islam" is the religion, and "Muslim" is a practitioner of said religion.

Islam is to Christianity as Muslim is to Christian

To expand on Styphon's point, how can one be a Muslim and not be Islamic, or vice versa? Being part of one makes you part of the other, as they directly relate to each other just as with my Christian example above.

I sort of understand why they would be offended, but there will always be people who are offended no matter how politically correct someone tries to be.



It sounds like a political correctness problem to me--people of the Islamic faith are worried that this statement may look bad on them as a whole--but maybe there's more to it.

Just a couple of things to comment on. Muslims will never get along with Jews, and vice versa. They never have. Never will. Anyone who believes in the Old Testament can see this after the "Ishmael" incident, where the "Angel of the Lord" said they would always be at each other's throats until the end of time.

I am just glad I dont live the hellhole called the Middle East! :)

The Muslims are offended because the term accuratley describes the fact that its people of the Islamic faith who have been behind the vast majority of the terrorist incidents in the world in recent times. Instead of being offended victims, good Muslims should rise up in outrage that their religion has been hijacked by a bunch of 7th centurt radicals, and should work to make the necessary changes from within.

To be fair, Christianity didn't rise up in outrage over the IRA, Christian terrorist groups in Northeast India, the Oklahoma City bombing or Eric Robert Rudolph, either.

There are extremists and fanatics to be found in every religion, so why do you think it should be up to all the members of the religion to rise up against people who use their personal beliefs as a false pretense to terrorism? More importantly, what makes you think that many Muslims aren't actually disgusted at these terrorist acts?

You know, how about you stop over-generalizing just for once, here?

I must've missed the part where the Oklahoma City Bomber was more Christian Psycho than Anti-Government Individualist Looney.

Actually, wasn't the OKC bombing more of a "White Power! Turner Diaries Rules!" kind of event rather than a Christian one? And yes, I do agree that there are Muslims that are disgusted over their behavior and even believe that what terrorists are doing is against the Qu'ran.

A more accurate example are abortion clinic bombers. Most christians and pro-lifers find the bombings reprehensible, just like how most muslims aren't down with terrorism.

I don't know guys, why not call them 'terrorists' like before?

Oh, right, because it's important for the world to know that you don't like this religion.

One entry found for fascism.


Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Islamic Fascists seems a VERY appropriate name for Radical Muslim Terrorists, in fact I daresay calling them "Muslim fascists" would be more call for offense since that's actually giving them creedence as being Muslims. These people certainly adhere to the religion of Islam though [or atleast believe they do], and the goals of terrorist organization and mindset is closely geared to that of Fascism.

To answer the question, why are people offended?

I honestly don't know.

Where do they even get off being offended, they should be repulsed by the actions of these people who call themselves Muslims, not Bush for calling them out on it. Talk about picking the wrong battle.

I come from a family of moderate muslims, and my mother whenever she sees the news gets so angry because these people give Islam a bad name, and make life hellish for Muslims who don't share their views.

I say call them whatever the FUCK you'd like! They are the lowest of the low. Anybody who is offended by THAT needs to have a reality check, it doesn't make you a good/conscientious person, it makes you delusional.

Double Post:
Wesker, i completely, and utterly agree with you.

Islam is ripe for reform - instead of blaming internal problems on the west and Israel they should take a close look at their own corrupt governments, and what they're teaching their children [to hate] because that surely would improve the quality of life much moreso than waging a perpetual war on western ideology.

Nothing you said is offensive, or indicates a dislike for Islam. It tells it like it is.

a lurker? what the hell...what you just said is or atleast should be far more offensive to practicing muslims than what wesker said.
It implies you think what is being portrayed by terrorists is the real Islam. Which I don't think anybody with half a brain [openly] believes to be good.

If it's agreed that terrorists don't embody the ideals and drives of mainstream religions, then why even bring their religion into it? that is what I said. I'm sorry if this is offensive to your tell-it-like-it-is sensibilities.

Well they obviously do practice a perverted version Islam, and their actions are under the banner of Islam - I think it's a stupid bone to pick. But I guess we can agree to disagree.

Do you think that us vs. them language can translate very easily into us vs. them mentalities, and that when dealing with something that is dangerously nuanced as trans-continental terrorism we shouldn't revert to patriotism and jingoism as explanations for their behavior?

What I'm trying to say is, is their religion their defining characteristic, and if not, why are you prominently displaying it in their new label?

Calling them Islamic fascists is neither jingoistic nor patriotic, it's descriptive. They aren't all from one country, so you can't call them Iranian fascists, or whatever, the unifying factor among them is their religion. The desire of both Osama Bin Laden and Iran is the reestablishment of the caliphate from the middle east to Spain. This is religious movement at its core. Radical Islam seeks to establish Sharia law whenever it gains power, this law is a civil code for the people and is at its heart both a religious and political movement. The Caliphate and its establishment is Islamic Fascism.

Nationalism can be applied to religions since when?

The Church of England.

Back to the original term, I think it might have some substance as a descriptive term, but the idea of using it to pigeonhole people is irresponsible. I agree with lurker's assessment of the "us vs. them" language because it's inherently a way for the government to re-establish boundaries and separate cultures. "They" are "over there" and their immediate goals are nebulous. Better keep a sharp eye out!

On another note, fascism denotes government control, and though that might or might not be true in Lebanon's case, the use here is a bit sweeping in its scope. That is simultaneously the purpose of the term and the reason why people are offended.

Since nationalism is based on a unity of culture, and in this case religion is key to the culture.

You feel that islamic states have a unified culture?

If you can have Islamic fascists, you could also have Christian fascists. However, I'm having a real hard time imagining what would constitute a Christian fascist. It's almost as hard as defining the term Islamic fascist.

Besides, why does Bush need to make these things up? Nobody has ever heard of Islamic fascism before, so I'm wondering wether there's a certain demand for this terminology now. Because otherwise it would just be yet another flowery phrase.

Islamic fascist is a term that many Americans are familiar with, it has been used by many bloggers and talk radio hosts among others.

This whole debate brings up an interesting question about the entire so called "war on terror". Terrorism is a military tactic, not a definable enemy. We, at least in the U.S., are told repeatedly that we are at war, but with who. All of the previous wars have had identifiable, definable enemies. The Kaiser in WWI, the Nazis and Imperial Japan in WWII, the commies throughout the Cold War, but this "war" seems very nebulous. If we are in fact at war with Isalmic Fascists we should by definition be at war with Iran, but we're not. Who are we at war with in Iraq? Fascists? Islamists? Insurgents? North Korea is a throwback to the Cold War against communism...are we still fighting that war since NK is an axis of evil member. If Bush wants to use the term I'm fine with that, but then lets get about the business of being at war and deal with the enemy before the enemy deals with us.

No they don't. I'm taking it that you are aware that nationalism exists outside the idea of the state.

Can you give examples for that?

Does 19th century German nationalism count?

And how exactly was this nationalism independent from the state?

The central idea of 19th century German nationalism was the unity of the German people, and that the German nation as a whole was more important than the various states it was divided among, wasn't it?

Regardless of my own opinion of the validity of the term "Islamic fascist", I think you already know the answer to your question. It's because "fascist" is a scary term, especially when cominbed with the name of a group of people that are thought to be behind 9/11, and keeping the American people scared is good for politicians.

I'm sure that it's not a controversial notion to suggest that politicians prefer you to be afraid. It allows them to justify whatever laws, and other measures they please, simply by pointing to the bogeyman. The Cold War is long gone, and America needs "Islamo-fascists" to replace "Commies".

Looking at this at a non-academic view, without opening the dictionary and actually defining both terms. Think about the word fascism and what's the first thought that comes to mind? It's not a pretty picture; Nazis, WWII, concentration camps, genocide, etc. Even though fascism doesn't define that, it's what the majority would think. I'd hate to be linked to that word; my race or my religion. So Bush basically said those 'Islamic racists murderers' without knowing it, believe it or not.

Completely agreed, basically basing my argument off yours. Add to that, how about an enemy of America saying this, how would you like it? "Justice must be served for all the American psychopaths". Well, he was simply talking about the serial killers but he was extremely unspecific about it right? You'd be crying a different tone then.

I might be confusing things here, but I thought the original quote meant to use the term "state" as a substitute for "nation". Even if not, how was 19th century German nationalism "existing outside the idea of the state"?

The desire to reestablish the Islamic Caliphate is an example. This theocratic rule stretches across the region, regardless of national borders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Age_of_Caliphs.gif

Their goal is not to change Israeli policies; it is to eliminate Israel entirely, as they and their Iranian patrons say quite openly. But even this is not the main goal, but only a first step. As they also say quite openly, they are aiming to establish a new caliphate that will recreate what they view as the golden age of Islam. And they want this caliphate to rule over all of the lands of the Muslim empires of the past--from Morocco and Spain in the west to the Philippines in the east, taking in the southern half of Europe, the northern half of Africa, and most of Asia.

You hit it right on the head. If there is any reason for the term to be used, that is it.

And yet everyone in the Islamic world knows such an idea will never work, whether extremist or not. Besides Shia/Sunni divisions, there are too many issues, in particular, regarding science. The Shia Caliphate stems from an attempt to reignite a wave of scientific progress in the Middle East, it is hardly one of destruction. A central Sunni idea doesn't exist really, since the Sunni division of Islam has no head unlike the Shia.

And yet again we are back to Israel. The reason every Middle Easterner would relish the idea of Israel getting destroyed is because of the unending arrogance of the way the state behaves. The forces have been strengthened after Israel's latest attacks on Lebanon. In addition, Israel sits on stolen land. Period. Ben Gurion himself remarked on the issue, basically stating that if he were an Arab, he'd be fighting to destroy Israel just like everyone else.

Sure no prob.

First lets define some terms here, just so that everybody is on the same page.

Nationalism: Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.

In this instance, nations are not considered to be states in the formal sense. Rather, they are merely large groups of people with cultural similarities. A state would be defined as a sovereign political group with established definite geographical boarders.

For example: The Kurds. They don't have their own state, yet they have a nationalist movement. The Kurds have a unified culture, but they are spread out as a people across many states.

Another example could be the nations within the UK. Within the UK you have the nationalist movement of Catholics in Nothern Ireland. In this instance the Irish Catholics are considered to be a nation of people.

A final example could even be Quebec where there is a nationalist movement to separate from the rest of Canada.

Of course there is the idea of a nation-state where a state with recognized boarders has a unified culture. Within nation states, those that are outsiders or ethnic minorities are scrutinized and even killed at times.

Your examples all have one thing in common: The interest of certain cultures or movements to build their own nation. You can add some Jews and the founding of Israel (which has absolutely nothing to do with nationalism, of course) to that list, as well.

This would describe the term "Islamic fascism" as a cultural group wanting to establish their own nation. While this might very well be true, I still think the usage of the term is largely incorrect, because ... seriously, what does this have to do with anything?

Was it confirmed that there have been plans made by the U.K. bombers to establish their own nation by blowing up airplanes? Again, while this may be true, wouldn't you expect someone to call them "Islamic fascists" to base their paranoid accusations on solid proof or use different, not so vaguely defined terms?

Are Islamic fascists worse than terrorists? Are they actually terrorists at all or just another virtual entity to be at war with? How do Islamic fascists look? Who is their fascist leader? You know, there needs to be a political dictator or something to lead their ideology. Who and where is he? Is my neighbour an Islamic fascist? He's not a Muslim, but certainly a fascist, so maybe even an Islamic fascist? Where do Islamic fascists meet to practice their fascism? Is everyone blowing shit up an Islamic fascist? And why are we even at war with them, when clearly, it isn't even confirmed that this Califate they're trying to establish is meant to stretch out to the U.S.?

Sorry, but there are a lot of questions arising from such a statement and their effects are directly in line with the goals of global terrorism.

Seriously, I guess Bush just meant to sound incredibly clever in using a term he probably doesn't even understand himself.

They already are a "nation" what they don't have is a formally recognized independent state with finite borders.

The entire point of my post was to show the difference between nations and states because both terms have been loosely thrown around and used interchangeably when they are actually different ideas.

As for whatever an Islamic fascist is?... My guess is a totalitarian muslim who is hell bent on the glorification of his state, or perhaps nation-state if he lives in one.

I think 'both sides' have problems dealing with this issue. Rightfully or wrongfully Islam is associated with terrorism on a daily basis which (as far as I know) is the only time that a religion has been so much at the forefront of such conflicts. It's also clear to me that most Americans cannot take a mature and educated look at "what is Islam" which exacerbates the problem and helps to compound the feeling (for Muslims) that Islam is being treated as an outside, abnormal and bad religion. As for what is Islam? well, it's not a religion of peace and it's not a religion of violence. There one billion plus Muslims and only a Muslim should be stupid enough to talk of the "true Islam". The rest of us should deal with the reality that there are a multiplicity of interpretations all with varying degrees of support and not try to single out what is their truth. Government ties to neo-con / conservative writers cannot help out the case that it isn't a term (regardless of truth) to marginalize the larger group. The truth of the phrase isn't the paramount issue; it's how it's being used and to what purpose. Those are in question and that is why the reaction from the Muslim community has been so strong.

Even if this phrase isn't meant to marginalize / delegitimize Islam it is meant to do that to terrorism--which I think it's safe to say that many Muslims have a differing view of than the average American. "Do Muslims support terrorism?" is at the root of this and ths answer is incredibly complex. Most Muslims clearly wouldn't kill themselves to do it. Some Muslims accept suicide bombings against civilians as a last means of asserting your own rights against oppressive forces (I would still say this isn't too large of a number). Still more would support bombing of military installations of Israel (or other forces seen as occupiers) -- something in most cases still considered terrorism by the U.S. The U.S. government has muddled the line between insurgency and terrorist in many speeches. More support Muslim independence groups who commit violence but also give humanitarian services... do they support the violence of the services? We don't really know. And, if we are going to call Hizbullah and Hamas Islamo-fascist groups then do their supporters (no matter the specifics of their support) become Islamo-fascists? These are relevant issues and so if this isn't a campaign to make Islam look bad it's an effort to make Muslims with sympathies for these groups become marginalized. Which, has got to piss some people off because I really do believe there's a feeling of "who else is really trying to help the Palestinians / Lebanese than these groups?" and that condemning the U.S. and Israel is seen by many as being more important than condemning little groups who in the end kill fewer people.

Is the term apt for the few assuming it has no implications on other Muslims? I personally don't have a large problem in terms of correctness with using Islamo- instead of Muslim- I do have a problem with fascism firstly because it conjures up imagery from the past which really aren't relevant and secondly because even definitionally it's not the tightest fit. Fascism = Italiy and Germany 1940. Anyone who has read right right wing stuff like to talk about Islamic connections with Nazis and that's not really an apt comparison. I also think that because of the varying degrees of power these people have it's not safe to say that they would run a fascist state if they came into power. Their ideologies are not necessarily fascist although they surely could be. It's usage is strange because there is not a direct fit to Muslim terrorist and Muslim fascist. You can commit acts of terrorism with the vision of a very non-fascist state. I think the same political implications from the first section come with the term "Islamic-terrorism" but I think there are fewer definitional problems with it. The State Department has a definition of terrorism and if the reason for it was Islam then use Islamic terrorism if you so choose. Then we can have a whole debate on whether that term is proper.

That made me laugh... because, it would be the most diffuse group of fascists in history.

And Wesker, I don't think we can safely say that wanting to establish a caliphate is fascism in itself. Knowing how the state would be run is of paramount importance. It also brings up a comparison to the modern state where we can actually have a great amount of control over vast territories. The Caliphs did not have nearly the same type of control over their lands like we do today. Nominal loyalty for protection, etc. That map would be completely over stated in terms of real control. Even if they want to re-establish a caliphate on the borders of that map it's important to know how they'd rule it before calling them fascists. I would be willing to bet that the percentage of Muslims in that land is close to the percentage of Jews in Israel (Spain may throw that guess off a little). So, even making it an Islamic state (depending on the laws) would not be fascist. The loose definition posted earlier was:

Assuming we can call Islam nation or race do we know that the state would go beyond modern nationalist (Germany, France) or religious homelands (Israel, Pakistan) of today? The rest of those points are all 'maybe'.

Fascism implies some form of government. As far as I know, Al'Quida et. al are in the business of launching sporadic, small-scale attacks on Western targets, not exalting some race or nation above others. Nor does it appear they want to centralize authority. If anything, they want to render chaos and dispersal, not centralization. In fact, the organization of Al'Quida itself doesn't display any kind of autocracy, as many of its cells operate without any central direction. Hell, the whole Islamic Jihadist movement is without any central direction, the same people we want to annoint with the title of "Fascists".

Besides, by calling them Fascists we give them organizational legitimacy, instead of recognizing them for the lawless killers they really are. Do we really want that?

Agree with gren.

People have watched for the last 5 years of many terror incidents committed by those who claim themselves as the true guardian of Islam.

So when the administration, media, radios and blogs kept mentioning the terms 'islamo-fascist' and 'islamo-terrorist', it is bound to happen that many people will associate the word 'Islam' with 'fascism' and 'terrorism'. And that is not true.

The name Joseph Goebbels comes into my head.

I say, just call them 'terrorists', because they justified themselves in targeting civilians.

Disregarding the conversation's direction i'll address the first post :

Islamic Fascist is an unacceptable generalisation, and dragging Islam into the name (no matter the context) only stirs up the automatic defense mechanism of any hot blooded muslim..

Of course it's hard to explain to athiests what religion and religious references 'do' exactly but think of it this way : If you're not offended that's because it ain't directed at you (not christianity or judaism if you're any of those, YOU) it's hypocritical to say that if a Muslim leader with speaking power and a heard voice (no he doesn't exist) called a bunch of christians "Christian Fascists" non of the christians would be offended.. That's a flat out lie.. Of course it'll offend people because it straight-out drages religion into it, and if you're religious you get offended, why the hell did he associate his religion with his errors/ways ?

Dumb thread i must say.. Not that i'm hurt but i find it funny to see so many idiots thinking they're the "High-road masters" wondering why the world has so many "closed-minded people".. I'll tell you why, while you act all perfectionist; because the world's full of these people. Now shut up with your "open-mindedness".. I ain't even a muslim but a discriminative term like that used beside me warrants a swift 'truck to the face' punch.. Morons..

Fascism - 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.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary.

This sounds like organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Quaeda (As was represented by the Taliban). They've legitimzed themselves and placed themselves in seats of legal power. I believe then, that the term "Islamo-Fascism" would apply in these cases.

Furthermore, to reply to CryHavoc's oddly self-righteous indignatory comment from way out in left field, no one is categorizing all muslims (or arabs/indo-aryan peoples) as such. Simply the ones who continue to commit violent acts in the name of Islam.

I would also describe Bush as a religio-fascist. He uses his seat of power to enforce his religious beliefs.

Well, no... it may very well apply for the Taliban but it doesn't apply for Hamas or Hizbullah... and I haven't read anything of their visions (were they allowed to propogate unfettered) that seem fascist. In fact, both have worked within democracies although plainly they don't have the power to overthrow the democratic systems.

Al-Qaeda maybe has a fascist vision. Definitely a conservative and religious one with a different economic system then we have... does that mean rigid control? I'm not sure, maybe if we take market capitalism to be the only form of uncontrolled economy (although it is not nearly realized anywhere). I think it would be interesting to see if they would fit a classical fascism definition (minus racism). It's possible they would, but I'm not convinced that it's inevitable. If you _really_ think Bush is a fascist then maybe you have some right to call these group fascist... but it's clear that Bush is nothing near the classical definition.

It's true that not everyone is calling all Muslims fascists. However they are calling all Muslim groups that will take up arms fascists since all Muslim terrorists are considered Islamic fascists. This is problematic considering the term terrorist (state department definition) is incredibly political in itself. Only "non-state actors" can be terrorists doesn't make a lot of Muslims who happy. Also, calling them Islamo-fascists makes anyone who supports one of these movements supporting fascism and therefore guilt by association. And it's clear that a lot of Muslims are willing to call Hamas' actions just as acceptable as the IDF's.

You also have the fact that Islam is already a religion that Muslims feel is being picked on and this doesn't help. Israeli positions in the occupied territories do involve stringent economic controls and destruction of opposition, censorship, etc... but we wouldn't call them Judeo-Fascists... and it's not that I think we should.... but, I am sure many Muslims feel that this term is only acceptable because it's being used against Muslims... and I do think to an extent that is true.

So? Many Fascist and extreme right-wing parties have worked through democratic systems. It doesn't change what they stand for.

No, it doesn't. In fact, Al'Quida operates without any central direction, and as such does not adhere to the Fascist model for government. Furthermore, these groups have no intention of expanding their territories, an important tenet of Fascist doctrine that was apparently lost on the good people at Merriam Webster and Co.

It makes more sense to accept a narrower definition of Fascism because, suddenly, everyone involved in the WoT is displaying characteristics of Fascism, from the terrorists and the ideology they've chosen to pursue, to the Bush agenda of extensive Federal powers over the domestic scene and an interventionalist foreign policy. According to this word game we've chosen to play, this whole conflict is just a bunch of Fascist regimes duking it out against eachother, with no clear semantic lines separating the two. Neither Al'Quida or the U.S. resemble anything like the regimes we have come to associate with the term Fascism.

Maybe I'm completely wrong here, but I don't remember territorial expansion as being important tenets of the doctrines of fascists such as Franco, Salazar and Vargas.

I don't have a very high opinion of the way the Israelis are treating the displaced Palestinians, either.

However, I do not see how you can not classify organizations like Hezbollah or the Ayatollah family as fascists. The Ayatollahs for years have used their positions in the clergy and government to drive their vision of an Islamic world, they do use ALOT of social control and quite a bit of economic control to keep the populace under their thumbs.

Maybe I do have a loose term of Fascism, but when someone in a seat of power can make decisions regarding basic social interactions of people (for example, what religion they choose to practice, who they want to marry) and reinforce those decisions with threats of violence or economic sanction without any sort of reasoning with concern to public safety or economic growth-- that starts to set off alarms in my head.

Because I do not want to convert to Islam or support the idea of forming new statehoods (as is with palestinian struggles), in the mind of the muslim extremists, that makes me worthy of a violent death. Because I do not conform to their worldview, they want to see my way of life squelched, I'd call that Fascism.

I'm talking about conceptual Fascism, as outlined in Mussolini's "Doctrine of Fascism", because how we choose to define Fascism is really at the core of this debate, and dictionary definitions seem to be all the rage around here. My take, however, is less limited and far more accurate, since I've actually read it. Mussolini wrote that the State is the "Power which makes its will felt and respected beyond its own frontiers, thus affording practical proof of the universal character of the decisions necessary to ensure its development." There is, furthermore, abundant proof in the text that the inactivity of the state (as opposed to some loose grouping of bandits with AK-47's) would lead to its ultimate demise. In the interest of keeping this short I won't list them all, but I invite anyone to take a look for themselves. Therefore, it is clear that expansionism is a central component in conceptual, and thus semantic Fascism, and thus incompatible with general terrorism.

Fascism also presupposes the existence of a unified state, but I won't get into that for now.

And there are totalitarian and Communist states that have employed the exact same things, but Bush uses the word "Fascism" because it sounds a lot better (and has a lot of emotional charge). Fact of the matter is, although these regimes show characteristics of Fascism, they equally show characteristics of Stalinism, religious extremism, and classic dictarorship; an eclectic of different styles that merits its own category, perhaps, or, in the interests of this debate, something that isn't Fascism.

Personally i don't believe i have clouded vision about who we are fighting. We are fighting terrorism on a global scale. Some might say that we are just fighting some of the middle eastern nations, but as far as i'm concerned they are our biggest threat right now... as far as terrorism goes. Of course there are other organizations in different parts of the world, i.e. Japan and Spain. But they currently aren't a problem for us. Terrorism is in my opinion a larger threat than an opposing country because terrorism is constant. It doesn't stop to sign treaties or cease fires(Hezbollah I believe is merely biding its time and building up its arms and munitions to strike again).
As far as the term islamic-fascist, we might as well call em like we see em. The extremists want a form of government which is very similar to a fascist regime, a fascist regime with a crazed and dillusional leader. Take for example Iran's leader who's name i can barely pronounce much less spell. He has denied the want for nuclear weapons in every interview and press conference that he has allowed, yet he test fired a long range missile from a submarine(quite recently). On top of that he has approved the use of heavy water reactors which produce large amounts of irradiated plutonium, plutonium is the preffered substance for a nuclear weapon. Does this not sound like Hitler before he started his war? People were rejoicing in Britain when the prime minister came back with his signed document that guaranteed peace. And we all know what Hitler did next don't we?
No, I need no help in defining the term Islamic-Fascist, nor do I have a problem with calling these people Islamic-fascists. Wesker, I do agree with you that we need to do something about these people before they do something very bad again. I think if another Republican president is elected and they don't lose many seats in congress then Iran will be next on the list. We can't let that man have nuclear weapons, mainly because he's a power hungry freak. On the other hand i disagree with you. I believe we need to remain in Iraq because even though some of the people might no like it, they need us to keep the peace. We need to finish the job.

Dude, Cloudiroth, do you think it's a good idea to equate Iran with Nazi Germany when you can't even bother to search for the leader's name? It doesn't really do much for your credibility is all I'm saying.

First of all I can say what I want. Second I do know his name (Ahmedenijad). I was simply saying that to put a bit of humor into the post. But thanks for caring... and don't call me cloudiroth, I just thought it was the neatest built in avatar, i.e I don't want or need to go looking for one. But im not saying he's a nazi, i'm saying he's a fascist. I know they are similar but to me they are different.
P.S.- I consider myself extremely well informed if quite a bit too conservative for most. If you will notice Lurker, I didn't say I didn't know his name, I simply stated that i couldn't pronounce it properly or spell it. It's called a language barrier, IT MAKES ME NOT TALK ARAB GOOD. Great, now that I'm sure i've offended a few people, I will respectfully resign my post.

What relevance does pronounciation have in a web forum?

I was being an animated writer. Maybe you didn't pay attention when they were teaching you to write in English, either that or you majored in English and you were taught by one of those "all about structure" proffessors. Either way why can't you just shut up about it? The point is I know who the guy is so say something that has to do with the topic or stop typing. I hate critical people... anyway, I believe that the term Islamic-fascist is the proper given name for them... until someone thinks of something better. A Lurker I would appreciate it if you wouldn't nag me again. I don't want to waste my time talking about pronunciation. Mahmoud Ahmedenijad(or however you spell it) is a waste of breath for me to say... I label him Hitler jr., from now on that is how i will refer to him... kk?
P.S.- I noticed the link smartass, but too late. Why? I already knew, have fun rotting in ur basement, I am going to a party.

He's going to be fashionably late, arriving close to midnight and everything.

Since Ahmadinejad isn't an Arabic name, that shouldn't matter.

That's something i didn't know Styphon. What is it? I'm sorry I was so rude about it, I just don't like it when people talk about stupid shit like Lurker did when I'm trying to have a conversation. I'm not being sarcastic, I would like to know. Oh, and that was supposed to be humorous too. I see you didn't find the humor in it... sorry if ur offended or anything.

Iranians are Persian.

Furthermore I'm still not getting this. You admit incompetence, it is funny, but when I point out your incompetence, it is not funny? Is this how writers only like constructive criticism if it's couched in compliments? Maybe that's why all your fanfictions are shit, Cloudiroth.

Enjoy the party you've taken twenty minutes to go to.

Yeah, because that's the only thing hurting his credibility, in that post. He sounds so delightfully "Fair and Balanced", doesn't he? LMAO.

I hadn't gone to the party yet. I was still getting ready. Where did I admit incompetence? I didn't. I just want you to stop nagging. If ur saying I admit incompetence because it's hard to pronounce then you obviously STILL can't see the humor in my comments. Soluzar, yes, I admit that I am very right wing when it comes to most issues, though I don't back the president as much as I used to. He has become... a wussie. Lurker, Iranians are Persian eh? Actually I knew that, I just couldn't remember. It kind of jumped up from the back of my mind now that i've read it.

That is a strange party, where getting ready involves the internet.

Look, all I'm saying is that while you're equating people to Hitler, you probably should do everything you can to shore up credibility, since that is an... extreme comparison to make. Maybe it's not the best time to be joking about how you're a culturally illiterate buffoon, you know? But what do I know about these things? You think it's nagging when people point out that you aren't as funny as you think you are.

WHATEVER MOM, I'LL DO WHAT I WANT

Apparently i'm not. Either that or sarcasm doesn't exist where ur from. I probably read more books in a month than you have in ur life, so don't call me illiterate. I don't care how funny you think I am, as long as I derive some pleasure out of my words that is all that matters. I think it's nagging when people say things like,"What relevance does pronunciation have in a web forum?". Honestly, what do you do with ur life? Sit on gamingforce all day long? Who the hell are you to bitch at me about miniscule things such as that? I was just checking the post before i got in the shower last night, i don't have to tell you about my personal life, go do whatever it is that you people do when ur angry and sexually frustrated. Personally, I think you need to get laid, it'll take ur mind off the little things.

Whatever, you know UR both the same. UR bitching at me now because I typed UR? But UR right. I won't post on this thread anymore. It's useless to try and talk to you people after someone starts to complain. I guess since UR both old users you kind of stick up for each other eh? Well, it's great that you have a superiority complex because of the forum and all, but try not to be such a dick. Oh and Devo, perhaps you should read my earlier post, I did give a reason for comparing him to hitler.

Lets sidetrack this a tad more. Why not? Everyone else is doing it.

I remember back when I used to visit the more political-esque topics in political palace. Long time ago. Back before it became so nit-picky and immaterial. Sidetracking over any little thing. Or maybe it did from the start, and I just happened to visit during a 'down' time.

Although, to some extent, it always did seem a place where everyone just wanted other people to verify their own comments. At least back then, what nit-picking there was seemed normally on topic and at least intellectual, as opposed to... whats a nice word for stupid?

Every now and then I come by and visit a non-sceince thread in the Political Palace... however, it rarely lasts longer than reading a fraction of a thread. Shame. I think it used to have higher standards...

What was Bobo's new mission statement?

no he lied like hitler. nt on the same scale but he lied. he said he didn't want weapons capability.

But it is. He did it in the same way you see. I never said that Americans have never acted like him either. Hitler didn't lie about weapons but i think in the end everything will be similar.

Hitler's a popular guy to be compared to. He could paint too, and quite well might I say.

I've also heard Bush compared to Hitler. I dont think bush is a very good painter though... I mean, I don't have any evidence either way... but... it just doesnt seem his thing.

The comparison to Hitler in this specific example is nothing unusual either. I've heard time and time again from veterans and those alive during the time of WWII, that the poltiics and the media right now sound very similiar to just before WWII. I've also heard that Middle Easterner, whatever his name is(like I really care), compared to Hitler a number of times both by people and in the media.

Thank you. Finally someone can not nit-pick about every little thing. Devo, you are saying the same thing over and over again come up with something new. Onsce, I understand what you are saying. Although, The Iranian president is lying about things that are a bit more important than most American lies. Devo, I undersand that every nation has a right to try and better itself, but Iran is led by a fanatic, and fanatics in the end are never good, especially when they have WMDs.

You're right, it doesn't nescarilly. However, I figure theres got to be some logic to it if I hear it over and over again.

I think the idea is really more of a land mine sort of comparison. Sure, everything looks cool. Take that step though, and loose your leg. Hitler was doing great things, well he was... then.. well... ya... the jews... you know.

Thats sort of the point. Sure, the guy seems decent enough. However, what are his true intentions? And with duel use facilities... Its sort of on he same grounds as Iraq. Attack with no proven WMDs, or do nothing and hope for no WMDs. I know its not the exact same, but the concept is pretty much the same.

I don't think 'nagging' means what you think it means, Cloudiroth.

Double Post:
I only picked on you for not having the wherewithal to google a dude's name, and furthermore bitching like a nancy boy when someone called you out on it, because frankly your logic speaks for itself.

or in other words, :edgartpg:

Double Post:
Counterpoint: mormons think their religion was not started as an enormous prank. There are a lot of mormons! Does this make them right?

RedIllustrationFace:
Nag is also a term with a high reliability upon working definition... so lets look at some different working definitions.

I don't think his use of the word is that far off.

Maybe I'll find out when I'm dead and gone. Regardless, that doesn't disprove what I said. There is logic to it. Believing your own religion is a quack would create quite a bit of dissonance, and thus you either would loose your faith in it, or convince yourself its right. The logic is there, it just may not be accurate. However, it is a viewpoint, and an opinion.

Thats about the same thing though as stating that catholiscism believes Jesus is the son of god, and there are alot of followers in the faith... so are they right?

I take it that you don't know much about how the Mormons started. If you prefer, Scientology, same question. Or, the Jews running everything. The holocaust didn't happen. Women ain't shit but hos and tricks. Etcetera.

the crux of my argument is that it is possible to have an opinion that is wrong.

Because that wasnt my point in stating that Hitler was generally seen as a good guy. Or in that this middle easterner might not be as good of a guy as he seems.

Who said that? The president of Iran was it not? So, if we had caught Hitler and tried him in a court do you think he would fess up? I don't think so.

When did Ahmadinejad (I nominate 'Dinnie' for short) deny the Holocaust occurred?

He believes it to be a myth to embarass germany. Story was covered in many newspapers during December of 2005.

'Dinnie' works for me.

Yeah that is a pretty good name for him cal. Watch out for devo and lurker tho. They get angry about the small things. They might get angry if you don't put the jad in there.

That's funny, because it came across differently in his letters. I thought he was drawing attention to the extent to which the Holocaust had been mythologised and misused for political ends during the last century.

I can certainly understand if translations of his thoughts on the Holocaust get artistic, though.

Maybe it did. Honestly, I don't know. I just saw what was in the press and online.

Wait.... what?

Cal, I think the Holocaust can be used for political ends simply because of the magnitude and horror of it. Would you rather it be written off? I think we all have interpretations of what he meant. The point is, he should have known what the ramifications for saying something like that would be.

Saying something like what, for fuck's sake?



Iranian President: Yeah I think Europe sexed the JewPogrom up and some of them now use it to shithang our 'hood for Israel's sake

US Media: 'DINNIE: 'CAUST AIN'T NO THING LIKE A CHICKEN WING'

Consumers with low-quality information:

'Cal, I think the Holocaust can be used for political ends simply because of the magnitude and horror of it. Would you rather it be written off? I think we all have interpretations of what he meant. The point is, he should have known what the ramifications for saying something like that would be.'

Well, to be fair, there was one instance where he insinuated that it might not've happened. He was using it to make a case for why Israel should exist somewhere in Europe and not in the Middle East.

Only in the context that Europeans should pay the consequences for their mistakes, and not the Middle Eastern nations which had no involvement in the war.

Aramaethe, it's not just using 'ur' that is problematic. Often your grammar is not conducive to making a structured argument--not that mine is either. I am aware that a webforum is not the most important place to make clear points but it is a useful skill. I think you should keep that in mind whether or not you want to act on it.

I also have a problem with throwing words like 'fanatic' around. It connotes that he is uncritical in his beliefs and is nothing more than a meaningless slur unless accompanied by an explanation. You also said we are fighting terrorism. As has been said by many recently, terrorism is a methodoogy and not an ideology. I can understand that states want to eliminated what they deem terrorist actions, however you can't fight the methodology--you must fight what leads to that methodology. That happens to be a complex array of ideologies and circumstances which have manifested themselves in many ways all around the world. Obviously the American government is interested fighting threats to America and they don't care too much about FARC or the LTTE. Reductionism is necessary for theory but we can't reduce arguments so far that they become irrelevant.

I am probably, in general, liberal (at least on foreign affairs). Being conservative or liberal dictates certain moral and methodological choices. It should not be a complete disconnect of realities. I was most struck by watching a conference by an academic conservative group on C-SPAN. They were incredibly intelligent and while I did have problems with some of their goals I could respect their opinions and come to an understanding of what our differences actually were. Typical mass media debates are a Republican and Democrat both trying to help the American people but fighting tooth and nail over something stupid. You need to define 'what you want' in arguments and base certain realities around that. Also 'read smart stuff'. I realize it's a tad subjective but, attempting that is a start.

And for the record I'm not sure that Ahmadinejad is a Persian name. Many Persians use Arabic names or slight deviations from them. I would be curious to know its etymology but I can't assume it's Persian just because he is.


Ahmadinejad's view on the Holocaust are probably complex. I doubt that he conceives of it in the same way that most Westerners do. The way I understand it he doesn't directly address the issue (as seen by his 60 Minutes interview). He always starts out by forming an argument: "If Jews were slaughtered in Europe and that helped to lead to the creation of a Jewish homeland then why is that homeland in Palestine and hurting Arabs when the Europeans caused the Holocaust". I think this and "wipe them off the map" has to be seen in the context of the question of whether the creation of Israel in the colonial context was legitimate and "right of return" for Palestinians. I think the media has been evoking the imagery of genocide which should not be a foregone conclusion. He could very well have a much different view of the Holocaust if not full denial. But it's clear he is using it to make a political point about Europe's culpability and the condition of the Palestinians. I think the Der Spiegel interview does a good job of showing his ambivalence about discussing the issue. However, I think the fact that he is still talking about proving the Holocaust does show that his views are incredibly different than Western view for the last many decades.

I agree with you Gren, that we must fight what leads to that methodology, but at the same time if we don't fight the methodology and just attack the source, then you've got a lot of crazy people running around thinking nothing is going to happen to them if they blow shit up. Wow that was a run-on. Not going to fix it though.
I, unlike you, am a staunch conservative, my values are obviously at least slightly different from everyone in this thread. I suppose that makes me a target? Well, I for one am glad your attack was not a direct one. I know what fanatic means. I characterize the president of Iran as a fanatic. He has said he wants the Jews to leave or die has he not? Well, the Jews sure haven't done anything to Iran recently. In reality, they never do anything to anyone, they just fight back when they are attacked. They just happen to be very, very good at it. Personally I hope Israel crushes Hezbollah and then goes after Syria. Oh yeah, much of Hezbollah is funded and armed by Iran, I just don't see how you people can't see that this guy is a nut.

My point was that calling someone a fanatic without explanation is not helpful. I am a Taco Bell fanatic. I am uncritical of their glorious food. However, you would not know I was a fanatic

He has not said he wants the Jews to leave or die. He likely supports the Palestinian right to return to their pre-1947 homes which could imply some Israelis moving but it is not clear. He has called for the destruction of what he sees as an illegitimate political entity. I don't believe he has expressly talked about the populace. He expressly uses the term Zionism--not Jew--because his point is that the creation of a Jewish political entity on the land called Palestine was not legitimate and has caused harm to the Palestinians (although Palestinian identity was not fully formed in 1948).

Has Israel done anything to Iran? Well, not much directly. They have fought a war in the realm of public diplomacy. Israel also has nuclear weapons which scares Iran because some of the Israeli hardline have mentioned that fact in relations to Iran's nuclear ambitions. So--realist or not--you must see a certain balance of power act going on in the region. Hizbullah is a manifestation of that. Shibley Telhami's idea of "prism of pain" is that many Muslims react stongly to the Palestinian issue. Therefore the governments of the Middle East have often reacted in favor of the Palestinians because it can take their populace's attention off of domestic issues (although there is likely a degree of genuine caring in some cases). If Iran is going to be seen as the major Muslim power then they must assert their influence in major Muslim issues. That leads them into confrontation with Israel.

Does Israel only attack when attacked upon? No. The Suez Crisis of 1956 is one obvious example. But, there was much domestic contention about Israel's stay in Lebanon in the 1980s. Israel kills more civilians than their enemies have killed Israelis. You may think this is legitiamte--that is your choice--however, you need to understand that killing Arabs does tend to piss off Arabs. You also need to understand that there is a causal relation between Israeli's treatment of Arabs and the creation of terrorist organizations. If you believe that Israel's actions have no impact on how Arabs treat or attack Israel then you are just wrong. Actions cause reactions and this does not legitimize either actions or reactions but you must realize and deal with these causal relations.

Israel cannot crush Hizbullah. The group thrives on the marginalization of Shia in Lebanese society because they can help the poor (with Iranian money). You cannot see this as a battle between good and evil. Hizbullah does help the Shia and in return they have an allegiance to Hizbullah. The group was foudned during the Lebanese Civil War when the south was under Israeli occupation. At first the Shia were happy that the IDF was going to kick out the PLO but they overstayed their welcome and when they started making life worse for the Shia groups like Amal and Hizbullah were formed with varying degrees of foreign support at the beginning.

I don't even think you understand why Iran has concerns about Israel. You may still think Israel is in the moral right or that Israel has a right to use force and kill civilians to protect itself--I may disagree but at least understand why Iran is pissed off. Your view is entirely uncritical. You don't see that there is any culpability on Israel's side. I don't want you to like Iran and Hizbullah. I don't like them. But you need to see why Hizbullah exists and will always exist as long as certain social circumstances persist. It may not only exist under the name of Hizbullah. But some violent group will exist among the Shia if they are marginalized in Lebanese society and Israelis take their men as prisoners. The PLO went to peace talks which failed and Hamas filled the void. If somehow Hizbullah stops its fight whether because it's destroyed or because it joins a political process that isn't working some ideology will satisfy the people. That is how things go.

Israel is a far more aggressive and warmongering nation than any other Arab nation you know. Is it really that hard to wonder how they've been involved in more wars than any other Arab country in recent times? The only time Iran has been fighting was when it was attacked in 1980.

Frankly, I don't think Ahmadinejad is a nut. Whether or not you agree with him, hes extremely smart and knows what hes doing. He seems crazy to the outside world, but in the Arab streets, among Sunni's and Shia who usually never get along, he is applauded for helping to face down Israel, the regional terrorists by the standards of the Middle East.

If anything, Iran has a right to pursue a nuclear weapon simply to counter Israel's deterrent. Israel has its own nuclear weapons, has delivery means better than anyone else, and has always been willing to attack its neighbors. No, Israel is a far greater threat to peace than Iran, and to call for Iranian disarmament without Israeli is competely hypocritical. It's also the reason Iran won't give up its enrichment program.

I'm personally no fan of Iran at all, having both Iran and Israel concede would be the best option.

I'm sorry, but the above post is the most ridiculous nonsense I've ever heard. Israel is only aggressive in responding to attacks against it, nothing more, nothing less. When you're surrounded by people who want to kill each and every last one of you, if you want to survive, you have no other option.

And while calling for Iranian disarmament is completely hypocritical, it is the only logical position. Israel doesn't want to destroy these other countries - it merely wants to exist. It maintains its nuclear arsenal as a last-ditch defense; the Iranians and other nations want nuclear weapons for the express reason to destroy Israel because a very small amount of weapons will essentially make that country uninhabitable.

If you can't see the difference between Israel and Iran in that respect, then you're simply being delusional.

You act as if it was Israel's intention to kill civillians - it wasn't. They used the cluster bombs because they thought they were the best option available to destroy the target. As in all wars, there will always be unintended casualties.

Israel doesn't need nuclear weapons if it intends to use them as a last ditch effort, as that would not help in its defense. For that matter, Israel simply doesn't need nuclear weapons. It has support from the US and enough European countries to guarantee its existence without its own nuclear program.

Israeli use of cluster bombs was a atrocity, especially considering everyone knows their failure rate and the fact that most were used in the last few days of the war, not the early portion. Their use seems like nothing more than intentional savage murder of innocent Lebanese following the end of hostilities. If you intend to hit an actual target, a JDAM or equivalent weapon is far better than a cluster bomb.

Secondly, theres a difference between an actual war and a false pretense for a war. Hezbollah's actions can't be justified as an act of war since they are not a state, and Israel thus has no right to destroy a country. Also, even if for a minute we assume that the attack was in some perverse way justified, hardly any Hezbollah fighters were killed, and a thousand innocents were murdered. Unintended casualties are a given, but it is not a justifiable excuse when so many civilians were killed with very few Hezbollah fighters killed.

Wait, what?

How can you say that Israel's nuclear arsenal wouldn't help in its defense? Israel hasn't faced a serious threat from regular Arab forces since 1973 precisely because of those nuclear weapons.

Whether they should have a nuclear arsenal as large as they do is another question entirely.

Except that Lebannon is either unable to or refuses to reign in Hezbollah, which resides in its borders, which means they are their responsibility. Because Hezbollah was launching attacks against Israel and the Lebanese government did nothing (or was unable) to stop them, Israel was completely justified in taking the actions they did.

Night Phoenix and Styphon make great points. I couldn't tell you when was the last time Israel attacked a country without getting attacked first. It sure hasn't been recently. But look at what is happening. Saying that ahmedinejad does not have an intent to destroy Israel would be crazy, whether that's right or wrong. If you try to think the way he does it doesn't work because he IS a crazy bastard, I don't care how smart he is or how much he loves his people. He's not a threat to Iran he's a threat to everyone else. Ahmedinejad or the president of Korea would be the first to discharge nukes if they had them so we can't let them have them.

Agreed, they may not be aiding them... but by refusing to help be ird of them, they are housing them. Lebannon is responsible for what occurs within its borders.

Because simply put, if you have defense packs with the States as well as most of Western Europe, who have come to your defense in the past and continue to do so when necessary, there is no reason to have them.

And yet you fail to understand Middle Eastern politics. It's not that the Lebanese government didn't want to disarm Hezbollah, it's that it can't, and there is no way to force it to do so, as attempting such a feat would trigger a civil war again, a far worse option than an armed Hezbollah. The need for Hezbollah was becoming a frequently debated issue, with the opinion becoming that it was unnecessary and should disarm. However, thanks to the actions of out of control warmongers, that is no longer the case and they have justification to exist for the next twenty years. There was actually a potential for calm in Lebanon, but Israel with its common idiotic bravado, just fucked it all up again.

No country has declared war on Israel since 1973, and yet it has certainly been in a fair share of unilateral attacks against soverign countries:

Osirak 1983
PLO Tunis Raid
Lebanon 1982
Palestinian territories, going on for decades
and of course the recent conflict


Secondly, Ahmadinejad is not crazy in the way everyone thinks he is. He isn't stupid enough to discharge nukes on Israel knowing fully well Iran would be a nuclear wasteland two hours later.

I have no love for Ahmadinejad and the Iranian establishment, although frankly, Israel is a far greater threat to regional stability and is far more aggressive in undertaking unilateral acts of aggression than any other nation in the region.

Judging by the results, Israel's nuclear arsenal has stopped more Arab-Israeli wars than Israel's defense pacts with the United States and Western Europe. Furthermore, from 1973 onward, Arab armies have improved their qualitative edge against the IDF. Those nukes keep the peace, and secure Israel's existance, which is a very good reason to have them.

Again, whether it needs an arsenal larger than those of every other nuclear power short of the United States and Russia is another question entirely, but there is most definately a reason for Israel to have one.

Also, by your logic, the United Kingdom and France have no need of their own nuclear arsenals, being allied to the United States.

Numerous UN resolutions show that the Europeans cannot be trusted in anyway to assist Israel. And while the United States is a major ally of Israel, unless the United States is willing to use its own nuclear arsenal to defend Israel or station a sizable contingent of its own forces in Israel dedicated to the defense of that nation, nothing is a suitable alternative to Israel's own nuclear deterrent.

All the more reason for Israel to attempt to destroy it. Thanks for reaffirming my point.

Wait, what? Why would that be?

Europe can always be counted on to act against the best interests of Israel, as they always condemn it for defending itself. There have literally hundreds of resolutions that European governments have been all too eager to jump on regarding condemning Israel in some way, shape, or form. If the Europeans had their way, Israel would've been destroyed by now.

Do you actually know anything about politics in Europe or are you basing your entire argument that Europeans are always condemning Israel on rumors, hearsay and your local gossip?

Yeah i've got to disagree with you on that night phoenix. I don't think Europe actually WANTS Israel to be destroyed. That's kind of crossing the line don't you think? Although, I do agree that they haven't aided Israel very much.

I'm basing my argument on the inumerable UN resolutions condeming Israel for merely defending myself that almost all European countries save for Britain sign onto.

Yes, but I still don't think all of Europe necesarily wants Israel out of the picture.

They both need them less than Israel, whether or not they have the right, under NATO, they are guaranteed the defense of the US nowdays. So yes, I'd say they don't need them either.

Israel's conventional forces were perfectly capable of defending Israel when it was attacked, and considering the ineptitude of most Arab armies, they always will. The Syrian and Egyptian armies are political tools, not capable fighting forces, it's foolish for a country like Israel to fear them. Besides, Egypt can't act nowdays anyways or the government would collapse without the enormous amount of aid from the US it recieves.

What are you talking about? Germany is committed to the defense of Israel, and the UK takes the same stance as the US. Europe is simply less aggresive in seeing the justification for the use of force. I wasn't aware that requesting the reason Israel massacred thousands and condeming atrocities deems them anti-Israeli. If anything it deems them more humane.

What, so every Western country is now obliged to give Israel two billion dollars a year just so people will say that they don't want it wiped off the map? Europe is the reason Israel exists in the first place, it supplies it with weapons, and some of the powers that be are committed to its defense. If that isn't aid, then I sure as hell don't know what you possibly would classify as aid.

If you were Israel, would you count on this remaining the case? Particularly after 1973, when those same inept Arab were able to bring them close to defeat?

Egypt's army, at least, is more capable than you give it credit for, particularly after it shifted away from the Soviet model that didn't work well for it. There are other Arab powers with significant qualitative edge to match Israel's, and quantitative edge to shift the balance in their favor. Saudi Arabia, for instance.

You say it's foolish for Israel to fear Arab armies. At the same time, it could be said it's equally foolish for Arab countries to fear Israel's army. The fact of the matter is, Israel's army is overrated, and if it doesn't fight on its own terms, it can find itself in a very difficult position very quickly, as in 1973.

Furthermore, in 1973, and twice now in Lebanon, Israel's aura of invincibility has been shattered. Sure, they beat Egypt and Syria in the end, but they had to work for it after a string of early defeats; it is quite possible for Israel to be defeated on the battlefield. Israel barely survived against a much-improved Egyptian army in the Yom Kippur War. If it had had to fight it again, when it had taken that improvement and what it had learned from its mistakes in 1973, it might not have survived at all. The only guarantee Israel had at that point was being able to turn Cairo and Damascus into radioactive ash.

Which is why Israel found it a good idea to make peace with Egypt (the largest Arab state) soon afterwards, and why Egypt can call the 1973 war a victory.

Saudi Arabia would never fight a war against Israel since they both depend heavily on the US, and frankly, shrouded in the rhetoric, they have some of the same regional interests. It's army is probably the only one in the Middle East capable of waging an offensive war and doing so effectively also, meaning such a situation is unlikely.

Egypt recieves $1.3 billion nowdays in aid from the US, the country cannot survive without it, and that would be the first thing the US would cut should they go to war.

And Israel won 1973 not because of the guarantee of the obliteration of Cairo and Damascus, but because of an enormous US airlift as well. Without that, Israel would have been defeated, and if the US is willing to step in like that, and risk such an oil embargo (it was known such an act would occur, it happened in '67 as well), there is little reason to possess the weapons. Nuclear weapons exist as a security guarantee, but in Israel's case, they are already asisted and taken care of without them.

Styphon, you know how dependent almost the entire region is now on the US for weaponry or support. Jordan and Egypt are staunch US allies now, and they were two of the three that fought Israel. The entire set of Persian Gulf countries have better things to take seriously than the prospect of destroying or fighting a war with Israel, and Iraq is under US occupation. Syria, the only country actually independent enough to do anything, would collapse extremely quickly. It's army, while large, is even less capable than Egypt's. Since Israel controls the Golan Heights, it wouldn't take long for them to seize Damascus and bring the country to its knees. Iran as well is simply full of hot air, and has no means to fight Israel, especially in the short term.

The security threat to Israel is completely overblown.

When there's a hundred-fold more collateral than destruction of the intended target, it's not collateral anymore, NP. It's the Monty Python fly hunting skit.

God forbid we judge a country by their actions instead of their words.

You misunderstand, I never said Europe had to do anything, and personally I don't give a damn. All I said is that I don't think they do very much. Arms dealing is not necesarily a big help because Hezbollah can get weapons just as easily(i.e. IRAN). I don't really know what else would help except for additional personnel and long-range support from other countries... so... what where you getting at? Hmmm?
How the hell do you know? Did you have lunch with Ahmedinejad or something and talk to him about his plans? Iran could be the BIGGEST threat to Iran because you have nothing to base that statement on... or do you have tarot cards or something?

And now I'm questioning whether you know how significant a defense pack with two of the worlds biggest economies, and defacto defense agreements is. That is serious help, and these countries also continue to turn a blind eye to Israel's numerous other violations of international law.

Europe may not provide as much financial aid as the US, but then, they still provide a lot of aid in other ways.

Do you want to show me where Iran keeps its nuclear missiles? Or how about a naval fleet capable of ferrying 50-100 thousand troops? Airlift capability and paratroopers that can land enough troops to mount an invasion, and not a puppet force?

No, I'm basing my statement on military capabilities, which Iran simply doesn't have. Israel on the other hand, could pulverise Iran into radioactive ash in a single day. Reread what I said, maybe you'll understand it now.

All the more reason for Israel to maintain that capability. Why would anyone go from a policy of self-reliance to dependence on foreign military power willingly just to make people like you feel better?

Didn't he say he'd feel better if they were both disarmed?

Because A) It's in violation of multiple international treaties, and B) It is far better for Israel's security. An Israel that starts to behave more cordially with its neighbors, and discussing concerns with them and vice versa has a far greater chance of surviving in peace than an Israel that massacres its neighbors and keeps the threat of wiping them off the map.

And yes, I also happen to strongly object to the concept of an Iranian bomb as Cal mentioned. The last thing the Middle East needs is a powerful Iran that behaves like it rules the region, which it is already starting to do.

Do you want to show me where we keep ours? All of them? You don't know what they are capable of unless you have been there and seen it do you? You think America has shown all that it can do in Iraq? NO, we haven't, you have no idea what Iran is capable of. Now Iran is a threat because Iraq is no longer there to keep it in check(The only downfall of the war.).
Oh, and Iran test-fired a long-range missile off of a submarine. That missile had nuclear capabilities. It was all over the news. I'm glad you have knowledge of treaties and embargos and cease-fires and defactos and all that crap. But, when it comes right down to it that's all just signatures. Treaties are made to be broken buddy, you watch.

Theres no need to find out if the US has them either, because everyone knows we do. As for everything we can do in Iraq, yes we have shown it short of deploying 500,000 troops and sending them to the guilotine in the hellhole that is fighting in an Arab country armed to the teeth.

It is irrelevant whether Iranian missiles have nuclear capablility at the momment, because they simply don't have the warhead. Nations have a right to possess ballistic missiles as well, and frankly, almost every nation in the Middle East has them. Your delusional if you think they don't.

Iran is only a threat if the US starts treating it as one. There are ample carrots that the US could begin using to disuade the country, especially the one that involves 1 on 1 negotiations. Simply put, treating a country with a bit of dignity instead of running around the world like a hapless child screaming terrorist doesn't work.

I'd come at you for a statement as foolish as Iraq not keeping Iran in check being the only downfall of the invasion, although that's better saved for later. For someone to say that however means you probably do not understand the Middle East in any way save for the garbage that continually comes out of the neocons in much of the US. The Middle East is a power keg on the end of its fuse because of the arrogance and stupidity of this administration, if you bothered to learn more about what is actually happening, maybe you'd understand.

I'd beg to differ; we could have decided to be truly nasty and deal with the Iraqi insurgency the same was we dealt with that in the Philippines a century ago.

But scorched earth fighting, concentration camps and wholesale massacre aren't as popular these days, what with media everywhere.

1) The term Islamic Facsists, for being a term, is not wrong describing these people who say they are doing the things they do in the name of Islam but who are everything Islam DOESN'T stand for.

2) The issue here is that some Muslims who are as much against these groups as everyone else, feel like Bush and his goverment are meaning them also in that term. A proof to that is the case of Muslims in London. Since the subway bombs, Muslims have been margined there and are being looked at the wrong way. if 0.0001% of these people is a terrorist, does that mean the 99.999 other % are also terrorists? That's what the Muslims are raging against.

3) Muslims around the world and especially in the US and GB are feeling like they are the terrorists they have been fighting to not be. That's all there is in the story. Americans and the whole world should be able to distinguish between people who want a good peaceful life in a good wrold from terrorists.

Are you suggesting that media influence has forced us to fight a war in a politically correct style?

I do think that the media publicizing the actions of the military makes the military a lot more self conscious about its actions. Which is good in the sense that it does sort of keep a leash on what they are willing to do to achieve victory.

In some ways, yes, the media is a negative influence, then again it also sort of acts as a body which indirectly carries out the will of the people through its influence "against" what may be field commanders' designs.

However, I don't think we'll really see any benefit from that on our end, because our enemies aren't really members of the "free-world" and thus have no such thing as a free-press and aren't concerned with public opinion.