Gamingforce Interactive Forums
85239 35211

Go Back   Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace

Notices

Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis.
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).


Why are people offended by the term "Islamic fascists"?
Reply
 
Thread Tools
avanent
heart eater


Member 1462

Level 19.73

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Sep 1, 2006, 08:38 PM Local time: Sep 2, 2006, 10:38 AM #76 of 131
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?
FFXI - Asura - Brd :3

Last edited by avanent; Sep 1, 2006 at 08:55 PM.
Sarag
Fuck yea dinosaurs


Member 748

Level 53.85

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Sep 2, 2006, 02:19 AM #77 of 131
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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Last edited by Sarag; Sep 2, 2006 at 02:26 AM.
avanent
heart eater


Member 1462

Level 19.73

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Sep 2, 2006, 02:24 AM Local time: Sep 2, 2006, 04:24 PM #78 of 131
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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
FFXI - Asura - Brd :3

Last edited by avanent; Sep 2, 2006 at 03:17 AM.
Aramaethe
QUALITY Pimp


Member 11878

Level 6.55

Aug 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Sep 2, 2006, 03:35 AM Local time: Sep 2, 2006, 02:35 AM #79 of 131
Originally Posted by a lurker
The holocaust didn't happen.
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.

FELIPE NO
Cal
_


Member 76

Level 25.37

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Sep 2, 2006, 08:38 AM Local time: Sep 2, 2006, 11:38 PM #80 of 131
When did Ahmadinejad (I nominate 'Dinnie' for short) deny the Holocaust occurred?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
LlooooydGEEEOOORGE
avanent
heart eater


Member 1462

Level 19.73

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Sep 2, 2006, 10:33 AM Local time: Sep 3, 2006, 12:33 AM #81 of 131
He believes it to be a myth to embarass germany. Story was covered in many newspapers during December of 2005.

'Dinnie' works for me.

Jam it back in, in the dark.
FFXI - Asura - Brd :3
Aramaethe
QUALITY Pimp


Member 11878

Level 6.55

Aug 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Sep 2, 2006, 01:09 PM Local time: Sep 2, 2006, 12:09 PM #82 of 131
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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Last edited by Aramaethe; Sep 2, 2006 at 01:12 PM.
Cal
_


Member 76

Level 25.37

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Sep 2, 2006, 07:48 PM Local time: Sep 3, 2006, 10:48 AM #83 of 131
Originally Posted by avanent
He believes it to be a myth to embarass germany. Story was covered in many newspapers during December of 2005.
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.

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

Last edited by Cal; Sep 2, 2006 at 07:57 PM.
avanent
heart eater


Member 1462

Level 19.73

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Sep 2, 2006, 08:05 PM Local time: Sep 3, 2006, 10:05 AM #84 of 131
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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
FFXI - Asura - Brd :3
Sarag
Fuck yea dinosaurs


Member 748

Level 53.85

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Sep 2, 2006, 08:16 PM #85 of 131
Originally Posted by avanent
Because that wasnt my point in stating that Hitler was generally seen as a good guy.
Wait.... what?

I was speaking idiomatically.
Aramaethe
QUALITY Pimp


Member 11878

Level 6.55

Aug 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2006, 02:30 AM Local time: Sep 3, 2006, 01:30 AM #86 of 131
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.

Most amazing jew boots

Last edited by Aramaethe; Sep 3, 2006 at 03:21 AM.
Cal
_


Member 76

Level 25.37

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2006, 03:49 AM Local time: Sep 3, 2006, 06:49 PM #87 of 131
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.'

FELIPE NO
LlooooydGEEEOOORGE
Final Fantasy Phoneteen
what


Member 119

Level 36.08

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2006, 10:46 AM Local time: Sep 3, 2006, 08:46 AM #88 of 131
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.

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

Last edited by Final Fantasy Phoneteen; Sep 3, 2006 at 10:48 AM.
Adamgian
Political Palace Denizen


Member 1443

Level 14.20

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2006, 12:20 PM #89 of 131
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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.
gren
Welcome to Raikhad


Member 2719

Level 7.65

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2006, 01:14 PM #90 of 131
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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Last edited by gren; Sep 3, 2006 at 01:32 PM.
Aramaethe
QUALITY Pimp


Member 11878

Level 6.55

Aug 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2006, 01:32 PM Local time: Sep 3, 2006, 12:32 PM #91 of 131
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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
gren
Welcome to Raikhad


Member 2719

Level 7.65

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2006, 02:01 PM #92 of 131
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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Adamgian
Political Palace Denizen


Member 1443

Level 14.20

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2006, 08:59 AM #93 of 131
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.

I was speaking idiomatically.
Night Phoenix
The Last Great Hope™


Member 668

Level 20.50

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2006, 09:44 AM Local time: Sep 4, 2006, 09:44 AM #94 of 131
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.

Most amazing jew boots
Night Phoenix
The Last Great Hope™


Member 668

Level 20.50

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2006, 12:54 PM Local time: Sep 4, 2006, 12:54 PM #95 of 131
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.

FELIPE NO
Adamgian
Political Palace Denizen


Member 1443

Level 14.20

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2006, 01:48 PM #96 of 131
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?
Lord Styphon
Malevolently Mercurial


Member 3

Level 50.41

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2006, 02:01 PM Local time: Sep 4, 2006, 02:01 PM #97 of 131
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?
Night Phoenix
The Last Great Hope™


Member 668

Level 20.50

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2006, 03:59 PM Local time: Sep 4, 2006, 03:59 PM #98 of 131
Quote:
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.
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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.
Aramaethe
QUALITY Pimp


Member 11878

Level 6.55

Aug 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2006, 04:03 PM Local time: Sep 4, 2006, 03:03 PM #99 of 131
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.

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


Member 1462

Level 19.73

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2006, 04:24 PM Local time: Sep 5, 2006, 06:24 AM #100 of 131
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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
FFXI - Asura - Brd :3
Reply

Thread Tools

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace > Why are people offended by the term "Islamic fascists"?

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.