Mofaz: Israel will attack Iran if it continues nuclear weapons development

[bub]

You win nothing --- accept a free pass to the next available remedial history course.

Islamofacism is VERY real --- and the fact that you deny it makes you part of the problem.

This is all to common among liberals who live their lives appeasing groups of terrorist douchebags like Iran.

:mrgreen:

maybe if you tried to answer with rational arguments I could take you seriously

 

[MSgt]

If you disagree, then you have to answer to my post about the characteristics of fascism, and you'll have to prove that Islamists have common points with fascists:

1) You have to prove that they are nationalist and expansionist (which is totally false, AQ is the most perfect example of transnational organization and Hamas fights against a territorial occupation)

2) You have to prove that AQ wants to create a "new man", that they practice eugenism, like the Germans did with the Aryans

3) You have to prove that AQ refers to social darwinism, like the Germans saying that they are genetically superior to the Jews, which does not happen
in the M/E

4) You have to prove that AQ is highly bureaucratic, which is not true

5) You have to prove that AQ is supported by industrial-military complexes, which is 100% wrong, as AQ is more like a guerilla than a regular army

...

"Islamofascism" is not "AQfascism." Islamofascism is a collaberation based on mutual sentiments, not of equal goals. It doesn't have to fit exactly.

1) Islam has very much been about expansionism throughout history. Were it not for European imperialism, the Ottoman Turks would have demonstrated this for far longer.

2) The fundamentals of Islam continue to pine for the coming of the next Caliphate. This was a goal set by Khomeini and he himself threatened to assume himself as that man.

3) Arabs believe themselves to be superior to all the races and to all the tribes within Islam. They look down upon Palestinians. They hold violent grudges for the Shia (heretics). They frown upon black Africans. They despise the Iranians (Shias). They dislike the Turks for abolishing the Caliphate. And their sentiments towards Jews has always been about uneasy toleration and contempt.

4) Al-Queda is very much like a dictatorship. One man rules them all. Until the 1920s, Islam was ruled by one man - the Caliphate. The elders underneath were mere consults. The writings held dear to the Muslim Brotherhood seek the next Caliphate. This is where the Arabs were petrified that Khomeini was going to be able to sell about himself (hello Wahhibism).

Now, hold on! Consider all of this.....

The term "Islamofascism" has everything to do with collaberation. In 1942, Haj Amin (mufti of Jerusalem) paid the fuhrer a personal visit. He was a special guest in Berlin where he presided over the unveiling of the Islamic Central Institute. He made trips into the Balkans to draft Muslim volunteers for the Axis war effort. This means that many Muslims hitched their futures to Hitler. In 1943, Haj Amin addressed the imams in the Bosnian SS and assured them that Islam and Nazism shared a commitment to social order, family struicture, hard work, and perpetual struggle - especially agaiunst the Americans, the English, and the Jews. From Berlin, in 1944, he broadcasted Nazi propoganda to the Arab world and preached that Arabs should "kill Jews wherever you find them."

During World War One, Reza Shah contacted Germany’s embassy in Tehran and solicited their help in fighting British and Russian encroachments upon Iran. Reza Shah allied with the Fuhrer as well during World War II. Though they were gentler and spared the lives of Iranian Jews, Iran was Germany's largest trading partner.

Moving through the years, we would see Black September take Jewish hostages at an Olympic event - of all the places - Munich, Germany. The Hamburg Cell based and planned 9/11 in Hamburg, Germany. Later, Ahmenadejed would reach out to the West for sympathy against America in regards to it's nuke program to - of all countries - Germany.

I'm not suggesting that there is a conspiracy betwen Germany and terrorists, but what I am suggesting is that even though Germany has denied these clowns and arrested extremists in their country, that the Muslim world still views them as kindred spirits based on past hatreds, racisms, and targets.

I believe this is a more accurate description of the idea, "Islamofascism."

 

[bub]

Hi! Glad to see someone finally answering with rational arguments :2wave:

"Islamofascism" is not "AQfascism."

Who do you try to compare to the fascists? All the Muslims or just the extremist ones?

AQ is a good example of Islamist terrorist organization, and it does not fit at all with any serious definition of facism. You may pick any other terrorist organization, it will be the same (but you may try if you want to)

Islamofascism is a collaberation based on mutual sentiments, not of equal goals. It doesn't have to fit exactly.

That's too vague. If you want to call something "facist", it should fit the definition of facism.

1) Islam has very much been about expansionism throughout history. Were it not for European imperialism, the Ottoman Turks would have demonstrated this for far longer.

(that was the first characteristic of facism, the nationalist expansionism)

Christianism has also been "much about expansionism" (otherwize Brazilian people would not worship a guy from Nazareth), yet it is not nationalist expansionism. Islam/christianism is not a nationality. Facism is more recent than the spread of religions, and uses modern concepts like nationality, which is very different from an ideology.

If you start calling all the expansionist ideologies "facist", everybody is facist. The communists, the French, the white people, englishspeakers, capitalists...

I'm talking about nationalist expansionism, not just expansionism. As Islam is not a nationality, and as Muslims consider themselves rather "shia" or "sunni" (= Islamist movements are TRANSNATIONAL) than "Iraqi" or "Lebanese", it is totally wrong to talk about facism.

3) Arabs believe themselves to be superior to all the races and to all the tribes within Islam. They look down upon Palestinians. They hold violent grudges for the Shia (heretics). They frown upon black Africans. They despise the Iranians (Shias). They dislike the Turks for abolishing the Caliphate. And their sentiments towards Jews has always been about uneasy toleration and contempt.

You talk about Arabs, not about Islamists (Palestinians, Iranians and Turks are also Muslim), so it would be "Arabofacism", not "Islamofacism"

Then, this sentiment of superiority is not social darwinism like Germans had developped, with an elaborated hierarchy of races, with scientists studying supposed differences between the Aryans and the other people, with the will to create a new pure race of blond people with blue eyes...all these things are totally absent in Islam, that's why it is wrong to say that this ideology is similar to fascism.

4) Al-Queda is very much like a dictatorship. One man rules them all. Until the 1920s, Islam was ruled by one man - the Caliphate. The elders underneath were mere consults. The writings held dear to the Muslim Brotherhood seek the next Caliphate. This is where the Arabs were petrified that Khomeini was going to be able to sell about himself (hello Wahhibism).

And how does it make it facist? If dictatorship was a synonym of facism, then the communists, the romans, the persians...most of the world would be facist.

You do not talk about bureaucracy, because it does not exist in Islamist movements. Yet it is one of the main characteristic of facism.

You do not talk about corporatism, a militaro-industrial complex actively supporting the Islamists, planned mobilization of industry, or even directed economy, because it does not exist in the M/E. Yet these are also some of the main characteristics of facism.

You do not talk about a monopoly on informations or on weapons, as these things do not exist in the M/E. Yet these are core characteristics of facism.

Whatever you say, Islamism does not fit AT ALL with facism. See posts 62 and 68 for further proofs.

Now, hold on! Consider all of this.....

The term "Islamofascism" has everything to do with collaberation. In 1942, Haj Amin (mufti of Jerusalem) paid the fuhrer a personal visit. He was a special guest in Berlin where he presided over the unveiling of the Islamic Central Institute. He made trips into the Balkans to draft Muslim volunteers for the Axis war effort. This means that many Muslims hitched their futures to Hitler. In 1943, Haj Amin addressed the imams in the Bosnian SS and assured them that Islam and Nazism shared a commitment to social order, family struicture, hard work, and perpetual struggle - especially agaiunst the Americans, the English, and the Jews. From Berlin, in 1944, he broadcasted Nazi propoganda to the Arab world and preached that Arabs should "kill Jews wherever you find them."

During World War One, Reza Shah contacted Germany’s embassy in Tehran and solicited their help in fighting British and Russian encroachments upon Iran. Reza Shah allied with the Fuhrer as well during World War II. Though they were gentler and spared the lives of Iranian Jews, Iran was Germany's largest trading partner.

That is a very weak argument.

First, because being antisemite is not a characteristic of fascism (Italians were not particularly antisemite at the beginning)

Secondly, because half of Europe has also collaborated with the nazis (yet you do not call the Belgian Christian Party "fascist") or have been antisemite (after the end of the reconquista, Jews had to convert or to get out of Spain, or they were burnt, yet you do not call middle-age Spanish "fascists")

Moving through the years, we would see Black September take Jewish hostages at an Olympic event - of all the places - Munich, Germany. The Hamburg Cell based and planned 9/11 in Hamburg, Germany. Later, Ahmenadejed would reach out to the West for sympathy against America in regards to it's nuke program to - of all countries - Germany.

I'm not suggesting that there is a conspiracy betwen Germany and terrorists, but what I am suggesting is that even though Germany has denied these clowns and arrested extremists in their country, that the Muslim world still views them as kindred spirits based on past hatreds, racisms, and targets.

I believe this is a more accurate description of the idea, "Islamofascism."

What? Because you believe that there is some supposed conspiracy theory about hypothetical links with Germany, that makes them fascists?

Chinese people have many commercial links with Germany, I suppose it makes them facist too.
Same for those Bulgarian people who learn German...

That's not an argument at all. Just a weak fallacy.

If you wanted to convince me, you'd have to explain me why you think that the characteristics listed in the article (and summarized in post 68) are fullfiled by Islam, in spite of the reality.

 

[MSgt]

Hi! Glad to see someone finally answering with rational arguments

Don't I always try?

Who do you try to compare to the fascists? All the Muslims or just the extremist ones?

We don't refer to all Germans as fascists. They were Nazis. The same is true in the Islamic world. It was the extremists and radicals who saw similar interests in each other.

Islamofascism is a controversial[1] neologism suggesting an association of the ideological or operational characteristics of certain Islamist movements from the late 20th century on, with European fascist movements of the early 20th century, neofascist movements, or totalitarianism. Critics of the term argue that associating the religion of Islam with fascism is racist, offensive, inaccurate, and totally counterproductive.Islamofascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AQ is a good example of Islamist terrorist organization, and it does not fit at all with any serious definition of facism. You may pick any other terrorist organization, it will be the same (but you may try if you want to)

The Muslim Brotherhood and Muslim leaders have a deep background of collaberations with Nazi Germany and facism. The racist sentiment is an aspect that describes the term "Islamofacism."

That's too vague. If you want to call something "facist," it should fit the definition of facism.

Well, in many ways they do. Brutal oppression for those unlike you. Religious dictatorship. The extreme hatred one can develop from nationalism is just like the extreme hatred developed from religion. Both, in this instance, shared a similar hatred and found companionship.

You talk about Arabs, not about Islamists (Palestinians, Iranians and Turks are also Muslim), so it would be "Arabofacism", not "Islamofacism"

OK, sure. But Sunni Arabs make up more than 80 percent of Islam. This isn't me, this is the term.

Then, this sentiment of superiority is not social darwinism like Germans had developped....

It doesn't have to be like social darwinism. The collaberation between Hitler and the Muslim masses shared the sentiment of superiority towards others, especially Jews. "Islamofascism" describes this.

Whatever you say, Islamism does not fit AT ALL with facism. See posts 62 and 68 for further proofs.

It has nothing to do with what I say. The word exists.

Author Malise Ruthven, a Scottish writer and historian who focuses his work on religion and Islamic affairs, opposes redefining Islamism as `Islamofascism`, but also finds the resemblances between the two ideologies "compelling," both embracing spirituality and rejecting reason. He compares Islamism first to Marxism but then draws a stronger comparison with fascism Islamofascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is a very weak argument.

First, because being antisemite is not a characteristic of fascism (Italians were not particularly antisemite at the beginning)

Secondly, because half of Europe has also collaborated with the nazis (yet you do not call the Belgian Christian Party "fascist") or have been antisemite (after the end of the reconquista, Jews had to convert or to get out of Spain, or they were burnt, yet you do not call middle-age Spanish "fascists")

In the word "Islamofascsim," the facist part refers to the Nazi theme and the Islamo part refers to the hatred of Jews within Islam.

What? Because you believe that there is some supposed conspiracy theory about hypothetical links with Germany, that makes them fascists?

Chinese people have many commercial links with Germany, I suppose it makes them facist too.
Same for those Bulgarian people who learn German...

Chinese people don't share a history of hatred towards Jews with Germany. And I stated specifically that I wasn't suggesting any conspiracy theories. What I stated was that for the Muslim world, there is still an air of kindred ties to Germany.

That's not an argument at all. Just a weak fallacy.

If you wanted to convince me, you'd have to explain me why you think that the characteristics listed in the article (and summarized in post 68) are fullfiled by Islam, in spite of the reality.

Convince yourself. I gave you a link. The term has always been controversial. On one hand people see the similarities because of the collaberations in history and the united hatred towards Jews. On the other hand people only wish to use the definition of facism and Islam as the sole factor.

 

[bub]

Don't I always try?

You do, but other posters in this thread do not!

We don't refer to all Germans as fascists. They were Nazis. The same is true in the Islamic world. It was the extremists and radicals who saw similar interests in each other.







The Muslim Brotherhood and Muslim leaders have a deep background of collaberations with Nazi Germany and facism. The racist sentiment is an aspect that describes the term "Islamofacism."



Well, in many ways they do. Brutal oppression for those unlike you. Religious dictatorship. The extreme hatred one can develop from nationalism is just like the extreme hatred developed from religion. Both, in this instance, shared a similar hatred and found companionship.



OK, sure. But Sunni Arabs make up more than 80 percent of Islam. This isn't me, this is the term.



It doesn't have to be like social darwinism. The collaberation between Hitler and the Muslim masses shared the sentiment of superiority towards others, especially Jews. "Islamofascism" describes this.



It has nothing to do with what I say. The word exists.





In the word "Islamofascsim," the facist part refers to the Nazi theme and the Islamo part refers to the hatred of Jews within Islam.



Chinese people don't share a history of hatred towards Jews with Germany. And I stated specifically that I wasn't suggesting any conspiracy theories. What I stated was that for the Muslim world, there is still an air of kindred ties to Germany.



Convince yourself. I gave you a link. The term has always been controversial. On one hand people see the similarities because of the collaberations in history and the united hatred towards Jews. On the other hand people only wish to use the definition of facism and Islam as the sole factor.

Allow me to summarize your argument in one sentence (it will be more clear, and anyway your argument is not very complex)

You think it is OK to call Islamists "fascists" because, like Germany, they are antisemite and they have collaborated with the nazis.

1) Facism is not a synonyme of "antisemitism", it is a more complex concept involving many factors (which I have shown in posts 62 and 68) that are not fullfiled by Islamists (that's why you ignore them)

2) Many people have also been "antisemite" and "expansionist", but you would never call them "fascist". Spanish during the reconquista for example. Many people have collaborated with the nazis, and you don't call them "fascist" neither, I gave you the example of the Belgian Christian Party.

3) You should not try to defent this inaccurate concept, as it tries to demonize a religion and make people feel they are in a new WWII. What do you think about people who compare Israel to nazi Germany?



Let us see what Mussolini (the "founding father" of fascism) said about his ideology:

Mussolini résume le fascisme en décembre 1925 par la formule : « Tout dans l'État, rien hors de l'État, rien contre l'État ».

"In 1925, Mussolini defined fascism as being an ideology "Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state"

=> you see, it's a NATIONALIST ideology using modern concepts like the NATION STATE, which simply do NOT exist in the M/E, where these concepts are absent.

Fascism involves nationalism (which can not exist in middle-eastern countries that have not had an history similar to ours, as people consider themselves more as "shia" or "sunni" than "Iraqi"...)

It also involves corporatism and directed industry (which can not exist in middle-eastern countries with no heavy industry, no syndicates...)

It also involves a centralized and powerful state (which is not the case in the M/E, as these countries have very weak government unable to control their populations, have no monopoly on weapons or on information)

...

 

[MSgt]

You think it is OK to call Islamists "fascists" because, like Germany, they are antisemite and they have collaborated with the nazis.

I don't necessarily think its ok or not ok. It's a term I don't use but others do. But I understand it in the sense of common interests. Why are you getting so wrapped around it? I don't. I hold the same contempt towards Nazis as I do Islamist radicals. Both share a corner of the ring since their scapegoat target is the Jew as far as I'm concerned. Both share an ideology that would place them above their fellow man. Both have a vision of oppressive and brutal dominance over others. And both shook hands before and during WWII.

 

[bub]

I don't necessarily think its ok or not ok. It's a term I don't use but others do. But I understand it in the sense of common interests. Why are you getting so wrapped around it? I don't. I hold the same contempt towards Nazis as I do Islamist radicals. Both share a corner of the ring since their scapegoat target is the Jew as far as I'm concerned. Both share an ideology that would place them above their fellow man. Both have a vision of oppressive and brutal dominance over others. And both shook hands before and during WWII.

I've showed several times why it is totally wrong to call them fascists.

But hey, people rarely admit when they're wrong.

 

[bub]

I am sorry but it looks like you can not read:

Fascism =
- corporatism (>< they are not supported by a militaro-industrial system)
- wil to create a "new man" (>< that does not exist in the M/E)
- expansionist nationalism (>< Islamists are transnational or fight against occupation)
- bureaucracy (>< totally lacking in the M/E)
- worship of the body (>< not present in the M/E)
- monopoly on informations (>< does not exist in the M/E)
- directed economy (>< does not exist in the M/E)
- planned mobilization of industry (>< not in the M/E)
- social darwinism (>< does not exist in the M/E)
- monopoly on weapons (>< does not exist in the M/E)

You are simply using the argument ad-hitlerium, which is a fallacy.


I win. You loose. Have a nice day :2wave:

because:
1) your definition is not very complete, as it come from a dictionary. Mine is much more elaborated, as it comes from an article written by political scientists.

2) YOU have added "in this case, religion". The original definition of your dictionary does not mention religion.

So, not only your definition is much too basic and uncomplete, but also you have manipulated it in order to try to make it fit with your belief, which is an ad-hitlerum fallacy.

I have presented you a much more complete definition, which you ignored.

I did not talk about Hitler. YOU talk about fascism. I'm just teaching you that it has nothing to do with Islam.




Unless you prove that Islam fits with all the conditions of fascism (which is impossible, as my article, written by political scientists, proves the contrary), you are wrong

Here are the criterias that you must try to twist in order to make them fit with your bigotted vision of Islam:



If you can prove that AQ
1- wants to create an aryan-like "new man" (with eugenism etc...)
2- is supported by a militaro-industrial corporatist system
3- is nationalist (which it is totally not, it is the most perfect example of transnational organization)
4- is bureaucratic (good luck with that one)
5- has a monopoly on information
6- directs the whole economy of a country/uses planned mobilization of industry
7- uses social darwinism
8- has a monopoly on weapons
then only you can talk about "islamofascism"




Looks like you don't have any real argument, as your forced to use an ad-hominem FALLACY along with your repeated use of ad-hitlerum FALLACY

my article does, but you need to read...:roll::doh

In short:
- no nationalism
- no exaltation of race
- no centralized government (its the contrary, AQ is the best example of decentralized organisation, that's why it's difficult to fight it)
- no economic regimentation
...





Maybe they don't mention religion because it is totally irrelevant with the concept of fascism

1) you did it in post 65 :mrgreen:
2) is that a reason not to admit that you are totally and irremediably WRONG?

I'm sorry but I can't write bigger than that:

In short:
- no nationalism
- no exaltation of race
- no centralized government (its the contrary, AQ is the best example of decentralized organisation, that's why it's difficult to fight it)
- no economic regimentation
...

these are some of the reasons why it is WRONG to say that Islam = fascism.

If you had read the article I posted, you would have understood it
...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ear-weapons-development-8.html#post1057643136

I just love using big red letters :mrgreen:

(remark that none of these posters have admitted that they were wrong)

 

[Vader]

Aint this the same stuff that "aided" the Americans into beliving that Saddam and Iraq had nukes? :roll:

Not really.

Iran was caught with blue prints for a nuclear warhead. Iran has to be stopped. PERIOD.

Russia and China and being whiney bitches because they do not want to deal with a loss of oil shipments if Israel does decide to ass-rape the Iranian nuclear facilities.

:mrgreen:

 

[Vader]

I just love using big red letters :mrgreen:

(remark that none of these posters have admitted that they were wrong)

Middle Eastern Islam, specifically Wahabbis, IS facist. There is no doubt about it.

BTW ... nice letters ... I was able to read some of that post from across the room .... without my glasses!

:mrgreen:

 

[Peter Dow]

BBC: Israel & Hawks say - Let's Bomb Iran!

VIDEO :

BBC: Israel & Hawks say - Let's Bomb Iran!

Video starts with a BBC news report about the Israeli rehearsal for an attack on Iran's nuclear weapon development facilities.

BBC: Israelis 'rehearse Iran attack'

It ends with a new HAWK version of Adam Kontras's DOVE 'Let's Bomb Iran!" 2006 video set to the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann" song.

This hawk version now includes President Bush's former U.S. Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton calling for the US to bomb Iran now.

Now even Mohamed ElBaradei is saying that Iran is now in a position to start a crash programme to produce a nuclear weapon and he will resign when diplomacy has gone as far as it can go and the bombs start falling.

This Iranian regime is not a regime that anyone should want to be in a position to undertake any kind of nuke programme. Better to bomb them back to the Stone-Age or Iron-Age anyway.

OK then, only bomb them back to the industrial revolution and the age of steam but that's my final offer unless Condi is more generous to the Iranian regime than I am - then and only then would I agree to be more lenient with them.

- Peter Dow

Owner, Rice for President Yahoo Group
rice-for-president : Rice for President

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/729/condihawkdovekontrasdowhl3.jpg

 

[MSgt]

I've showed several times why it is totally wrong to call them fascists.

And you have been shown where people see this as more than a simple definition of fascism. "Islamofascism" relates to the latest mutation of the totalitarian threat to our civilization. The influence of Nazism and then of Soviet Communism had everything to do with the emergence of Islamofascism as a political force.

After the French surrenderd to the Axis they formed an temporary government in Syria-Lebanon (Vichy). This was wide open to the Nazis, because the Syrian-Lebanese administration took their orders from Vichy who in turn took its orders from Berlin. The Nazis moved in, made tremendous propaganda effort, and were even able to move from Syria eastwards into Iraq and for a while set up a pro-Nazi, fascist regime. After the Allies drove them out, ended the war, and left the Middle East, the Soviets moved in and established an immensely powerful presence in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and various other countries and introduced Soviet-style political practice. The adaptation from the Nazi model to the communist model was very simple and easy. This is the origin pof the Baath Party and of the kind of governments that we have been confronting in the Middle East in recent years.

Now, it doesn't stop here. From these oppressive regimes, the Islamists continued to insist that Islam be the governing voice. The mixture has created the brutal oppressive idea that religious fanatics have grown to love. But with closer investigation, we find that these zealots, who carry with them the idea of fascism wrapped in holy scripture, are eerily close to the visions of their anchient zealot forefathers. This is "Islamofascism."

But hey, people rarely admit when they're wrong.

Or...when they are both perhaps...."right?"

 

[bub]

And you have been shown where people see this as more than a simple definition of fascism. "Islamofascism" relates to the latest mutation of the totalitarian threat to our civilization. The influence of Nazism and then of Soviet Communism had everything to do with the emergence of Islamofascism as a political force.

After the French surrenderd to the Axis they formed an temporary government in Syria-Lebanon (Vichy). This was wide open to the Nazis, because the Syrian-Lebanese administration took their orders from Vichy who in turn took its orders from Berlin. The Nazis moved in, made tremendous propaganda effort, and were even able to move from Syria eastwards into Iraq and for a while set up a pro-Nazi, fascist regime. After the Allies drove them out, ended the war, and left the Middle East, the Soviets moved in and established an immensely powerful presence in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and various other countries and introduced Soviet-style political practice. The adaptation from the Nazi model to the communist model was very simple and easy. This is the origin pof the Baath Party and of the kind of governments that we have been confronting in the Middle East in recent years.

Now, it doesn't stop here. From these oppressive regimes, the Islamists continued to insist that Islam be the governing voice. The mixture has created the brutal oppressive idea that religious fanatics have grown to love. But with closer investigation, we find that these zealots, who carry with them the idea of fascism wrapped in holy scripture, are eerily close to the visions of their anchient zealot forefathers. This is "Islamofascism."





Or...when they are both perhaps...."right?"

European countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, France...which have been occupied during 4 years by the Nazis and whose populations (around 5%) have collaborated actively with the Nazis, who had SS-Divisions (SS Divisions Wallonien, Charlemagne, Nordland, Langemark...)...these countries have had MUCH MORE contacts with the Nazis than the Arabs (who were seen as inferiors by the Germans by the way), who have been under the deep influence of France and Great Britain for centuries...

yet you don't call us "eurofascists" because of what has happened 70 years ago.

But Bush is not at war with Europe, so you don't need grotesque amalgams to justify fear or hatred against Europe.

 

[nkgupta80]

European countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, France...which have been occupied during 4 years by the Nazis and whose populations (around 5%) have collaborated actively with the Nazis, who had SS-Divisions (SS Divisions Wallonien, Charlemagne, Nordland, Langemark...)...these countries have had MUCH MORE contacts with the Nazis than the Arabs (who were seen as inferiors by the Germans by the way), who have been under the deep influence of France and Great Britain for centuries...

yet you don't call us "eurofascists" because of what has happened 70 years ago.

But Bush is not at war with Europe, so you don't need grotesque amalgams to justify fear or hatred against Europe.

Exactly, another example is India. The independence movement leaders saw Hitler as an ally against the British Empire. There were direct dealings. But I wouldn't call Indians fascists...The same argument applies to Arabs. They saw Hitler as a potential ally for their own reasons (fighting british imperialism). not cause they wanted one world of arabs...

 

[bub]

Exactly, another example is India. The independence movement leaders saw Hitler as an ally against the British Empire. There were direct dealings. But I wouldn't call Indians fascists...The same argument applies to Arabs. They saw Hitler as a potential ally for their own reasons (fighting british imperialism). not cause they wanted one world of arabs...

...especially when what they do does not fit with the definition of fascism anyway

 

[MSgt]

European countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, France...which have been occupied during 4 years by the Nazis and whose populations (around 5%) have collaborated actively with the Nazis, who had SS-Divisions (SS Divisions Wallonien, Charlemagne, Nordland, Langemark...)...these countries have had MUCH MORE contacts with the Nazis than the Arabs (who were seen as inferiors by the Germans by the way), who have been under the deep influence of France and Great Britain for centuries...

yet you don't call us "eurofascists" because of what has happened 70 years ago.

Well, why would people label them as "Eurofascists?" They aren't on a specific mission. Was there some powerful society shaping political force like the Baathist Party governing Europe post WWII? Was there a Nazi legacy being clung to? Is there some distinct religious element in Europe that has managed to blend zealism to fascist like politics? Are there laws in Belgium that are meant to specifically keep other ethnic groups down as there was in Germany and as there is in the Middle East?

But Bush is not at war with Europe, so you don't need grotesque amalgams to justify fear or hatred against Europe.

Again, Europe isn't practicing a form of fascist legacy upon others.

 

[MSgt]

Exactly, another example is India. The independence movement leaders saw Hitler as an ally against the British Empire. There were direct dealings. But I wouldn't call Indians fascists...The same argument applies to Arabs. They saw Hitler as a potential ally for their own reasons (fighting british imperialism). not cause they wanted one world of arabs...

Negative. India's collaberation with fascism in the form of politics ended when Hitler ended. The Middle East formed parties that would instigate hatred and apply brutality that traced directly back to Germany. This was relatively easy to do, because their history is one of oppression and brutality upon other groups within their soceity. It was natural. There is a legacy that was upheld and twisted in both the sectorial and religious aspect.

 

[bub]

Well, why would people label them as "Eurofascists?" They aren't on a specific mission. Was there some powerful society shaping political force like the Baathist Party governing Europe post WWII? Was there a Nazi legacy being clung to? Is there some distinct religious element in Europe that has managed to blend zealism to fascist like politics? Are there laws in Belgium that are meant to specifically keep other ethnic groups down as there was in Germany and as there is in the Middle East?




Again, Europe isn't practicing a form of fascist legacy upon others.

Why you could call European fascists:

- much deeper influence of Nazism (occupation during several years) than Arabs (a few anecdotical meetings)
- presence of extreme right parties openly neo-nazi
- presence of real fascist governments until not so long ago (Franco in Spain, that guy in Portugal, the colonels in Greece...)

that's not sufficient to call Europeans "fascists" and you know it. And since the reasons why you call Arabs "fascists" are even weaker (what I just wrote above) you should not call them "fascists"

Furthermore, let me underline the fact that ANYWAY, what Islamists do does NOT fit with the definition of fascism, and so, EVEN IF there may be some superficial similitudes between both, that is not a sufficient reason to call them fascists.

 

[MSgt]

Why you could call European fascists:

- much deeper influence of Nazism (occupation during several years) than Arabs (a few anecdotical meetings)

Yet, that influence did not not manifest into anything post WWII. Did Nazism give birth to a European Baathist Party or a Middle eastern one?

- presence of extreme right parties openly neo-nazi

Yet, without the militant or religious zeal to guide a civilization down a distinct path. Did the legacy of neo-Nazism infect the European civilization or did it infect the Middle Eastern civilization?

- presence of real fascist governments until not so long ago (Franco in Spain, that guy in Portugal, the colonels in Greece...)

Franco was a fascist. Has his legacy manifested itself into a distorted political beast, which guides the society today and extends into the European civilization?

that's not sufficient to call Europeans "fascists" and you know it.

Which is why I stated that "Eurofascist" would not apply.

 

[Red_Dave]

Not really.

Iran was caught with blue prints for a nuclear warhead. Iran has to be stopped. PERIOD.

Im not convinced this is as scary as many make it out to be. Even if Iran does get a nuclear weapon what evidence is there they would actually use it? I,ld presume the Iranian governments fixation with Israel is more about refocusing its peoples attention on an external enemy [thus drawing it away from the increasingly worsening domestic situation] rather than any serious intention to cause harm. Theres certainly worse nuclear threats around.

 

[bub]

Yet, that influence did not not manifest into anything post WWII. Did Nazism give birth to a European Baathist Party or a Middle eastern one?

First, you forgot that part of the post:
that's not sufficient to call Europeans "fascists" and you know it. And since the reasons why you call Arabs "fascists" are even weaker (what I just wrote above) you should not call them "fascists"

Furthermore, let me underline the fact that ANYWAY, what Islamists do does NOT fit with the definition of fascism, and so, EVEN IF there may be some superficial similitudes between both, that is not a sufficient reason to call them fascists.

Then, yes, several political parties in Europe have been influenced by nazis. I don't know for other countries, but as far as mine is concerned, yes, several Flemish nationalists have been helped by the Germans (during both world wars by the way) who were more friendly with Flemish (considered as Germanic) than with Walloons (considered as a Latin people).

Those who have collaborated were mainly right-wing christians who claimed more autonomy and were members of the Vlaams Nationaal Verbond
Flemish National Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The VNV was outlawed after the war and its leaders put in prison, but its militants founded the Vlaams Militanten Orde and the Volksunie

Order of Flemish militants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
People's Union (Belgium) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

both have now disappeared but its members are in the 4 main flemish political parties. And of course they're not fascists anymore, they're just nationalists. But they still come from a party of collaborators.

WHAT YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND

- yes, there are political parties in today's Europe that have roots in fascism
- but they have evolved and are not fascist anymore, that's why nobody would call them fascist, and that is the same with Baathism

FURTHERMORE

- why do you talk about Baathism? That was Saddam's party, he was nationalist and totally anti-Islamism (he had a christian minister and fought against Islamist Iran)
- Islamists are the enemies of the Baathism! That's really strange to try to amalgam fascism and islamism while saying that fascists have met islamists' enemy

Yet, without the militant or religious zeal to guide a civilization down a distinct path. Did the legacy of neo-Nazism infect the European civilization or did it infect the Middle Eastern civilization?

- why do you think that a short lived ideology that has had nearly no contact with Islamists has had a so deep influence on this 1600 years old religion?

Franco was a fascist. Has his legacy manifested itself into a distorted political beast, which guides the society today and extends into the European civilization?

Not really, but fascism has still had much more influence here than in these oriental countries which do not have the main characteristics of fascism: nationalism, will to create a new man, social darwinism...

 

[MSgt]

First, you forgot that part of the post:
that's not sufficient to call Europeans "fascists" and you know it. And since the reasons why you call Arabs "fascists" are even weaker (what I just wrote above) you should not call them "fascists"

Furthermore, let me underline the fact that ANYWAY, what Islamists do does NOT fit with the definition of fascism, and so, EVEN IF there may be some superficial similitudes between both, that is not a sufficient reason to call them fascists.

Then, yes, several political parties in Europe have been influenced by nazis. I don't know for other countries, but as far as mine is concerned, yes, several Flemish nationalists have been helped by the Germans (during both world wars by the way) who were more friendly with Flemish (considered as Germanic) than with Walloons (considered as a Latin people).

Those who have collaborated were mainly right-wing christians who claimed more autonomy and were members of the Vlaams Nationaal Verbond
Flemish National Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The VNV was outlawed after the war and its leaders put in prison, but its militants founded the Vlaams Militanten Orde and the Volksunie

Order of Flemish militants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
People's Union (Belgium) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

both have now disappeared but its members are in the 4 main flemish political parties. And of course they're not fascists anymore, they're just nationalists. But they still come from a party of collaborators.

WHAT YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND

- yes, there are political parties in today's Europe that have roots in fascism
- but they have evolved and are not fascist anymore, that's why nobody would call them fascist, and that is the same with Baathism

FURTHERMORE

- why do you talk about Baathism? That was Saddam's party, he was nationalist and totally anti-Islamism (he had a christian minister and fought against Islamist Iran)
- Islamists are the enemies of the Baathism! That's really strange to try to amalgam fascism and islamism while saying that fascists have met islamists' enemy




- why do you think that a short lived ideology that has had nearly no contact with Islamists has had a so deep influence on this 1600 years old religion?



Not really, but fascism has still had much more influence here than in these oriental countries which do not have the main characteristics of fascism: nationalism, will to create a new man, social darwinism...

Like I stated, it's a controversial term.

 

[Orion]

It's controversial, but also clearly defined.

Iran is a theocracy, which means they follow religious law, also known as the Qu'ran. The Mullahs have a high position of power within Iranian society, and their rulings are heavily influenced by their interpretation of Islam. Yes, that can be abused, but in the strictest sense it is not fascist because they defer to a document which they believe contains rules for guiding society; conversely, fascism is the law of one person, carried out systemically and without the need for further explanation.

As to the topic at hand... the entire region is unstable, including Israel, and American involvement in Israel military operations has irreparably altered the balance of power in the region. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already indicated that he hates Israel and it needs to sever ties with the U.S. if it was to survive from being "wiped off the face of the Earth". Yes, he's a little off his rocker... but underneath his threat are legitimate grievances. Iran is working to obtain nuclear deterrence in order to ensure its future security in the region, given the current status quo of power.

Why are we surprised that this is happening? This is Political Science 101, and now we're seeing real consequences to interfering in Middle Eastern political process.

 

[MSgt]

As to the topic at hand... the entire region is unstable, including Israel, and American involvement in Israel military operations has irreparably altered the balance of power in the region.

So? Were we better off during the Cold War when the Soviets kept us at a "balanced" power? A balance of power only gives your enemies opportunities.

 

[Orion]

So? Were we better off during the Cold War when the Soviets kept us at a "balanced" power? A balance of power only gives your enemies opportunities.

Te structure of world power was different back then. Following WWII the U.S. was a global hegemon due to the reduction of power in WWII nations. The status quo changed with the rise of Communism. It was basically a two-state standoff. The stakes have changed in the modern world. The U.S. has been reduced to a regional hegemon only, as has Russia. Also present is the concept of "soft power". The U.S. may be militarily strong but it has lost economic influence.

The extent of American operations in the Mid East now are about attaining a powerful foothold in the region. Iran is trying to balance that by creating nuclear arms (ok, there is no real "proof", but everyone knows there is huge potential for that at this point). In parallel, you have a clash of cultural ideologies, and non-state actors such as terrorists (many of whom have received training from the U.S.) who are active at the transnational level. At least in the Cold War we were dealing with two identifiable state level actors, but now there are many parties involved, not all of whom we can pin down. Nor do we fully understand the extent of power over government that those non-state actors have. Iran will inevitably create nuclear weapons for its own security, but the security of those weapons are in question due to the non-state actors in the region. What happens if they make a bid for power with nuclear technology?

If American interference leads to nuclear holocaust, then the answer to your question is: yes, we were. When America allied itself with Israel and the CIA established and trained allies in response to Russia's involvement in the region, it did not account for that training to be in turn used to counter America. What do you think the First Gulf War was about? Cleaning up the mess of and severing ties with an old ally. Our alliance with Middle Eastern non-state actors, and even state actors, turned into the "war on terror" once the U.S. lost its ability to control the situation. Such a familiar pattern.

Too many observers are treating Iran as an irrational actor. It may not be the most resource-equipped nation on the planet, and it may not be a democratic nation, but their government is not stupid. They know full well that the U.S. has an agenda in the region and they are going to take steps to secure their future existence. Add some freedom fighters to the mix who will undoubtedly make a bid for nuclear technology, and you have a recipe for disaster.

It's too late for the U.S. to back out now anyway. The only thing preventing Israel from being descended upon by surrounding nations or the UN itself (for inspection of the presence of illegal nuclear arms) is its alliance to the U.S.