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

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Rock

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.

Here's a good place to start.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Rock

Can you give examples for that?

Does 19th century German nationalism count?

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

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?

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by lordjames

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.

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 was speaking idiomatically.

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

Quote:

IT MAKES ME NOT TALK ARAB GOOD

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

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Adamgian1

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.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Adamgian1

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by Adamgian1

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Adamgian1

The Syrian and Egyptian armies are political tools, not capable fighting forces, it's foolish for a country like Israel to fear them.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Adamgian1

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.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.