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

Quote:

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".

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

Quote:

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.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

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.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

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.

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.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

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?

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.

Quote:

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?

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

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?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.