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

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?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Devo

So that makes any leader comparable to Hitler simply because, *gasp* they lied about their desire for weaponry?

Are you serious?

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Devo

That doesn't justify the comparison or make it a rational one.

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.

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

RedIllustrationFace:

Quote:

Nag:
to find fault or complain in an irritating, wearisome, or relentless manner
to annoy by persistent faultfinding, complaints, or demands.

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

Quote:

Nag:
A form of 'moaning'. Primarily used by women to complain about nearly anything and everything.
To complain, bitch or whine
Person who excessively complains/bitches/whines.

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

Originally Posted by a lurker

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

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 am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by a lurker

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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

'Dinnie' works for me.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Cal

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

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.

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.

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