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

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.

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 kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

Numerous UN resolutions show that the Europeans cannot be trusted in anyway to assist Israel.

Wait, what? Why would that be?

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

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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?

Most amazing jew boots

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.

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

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.

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

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

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?

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

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.

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

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

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.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Adamgian

Iran as well is simply full of hot air, and has no means to fight Israel, especially in the short term.

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?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

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

Quote:

Israel on the other hand, could pulverise Iran into radioactive ash in a single day.

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?

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

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

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Adamgian

Do you want to show me where Iran keeps its nuclear missiles?

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.

FELIPE NO

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.

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

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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!

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

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

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

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

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.

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