The Nazi/appeasement analogy

[mburbank]

I would be willing to trade comparing Iraq to Vietnam with any analogy featuring Hitler, Nazis or appeasement.

Seriously. I'm that sick of it already.

[El Blanco]

Why are you sick of it? What are the main differences you see?

Because the main difference I see in the Iraq conflict is that the USSR isn't backing the insurgents this time. In fact, there really doesn't seem to be much cohesion in the insurgency at all. I'm wondering if they spend as much time fighting each other as they do fighting our guys.

I think the similarities between Iraq and Viet Nam (at least, from you and I are) happen to be the perception of whats happening. We are actually seeing the destruction and violence in live, screaming color. We didn't get that before VN. But, I think I'll collect my thoughts on that one a little better and start a thread on that.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

Iraq and Nam are very different. In Nam we had a concrete ally to back, in Iraq we are creating this ally. In Vietnam we were defending against the spread of communism and the violence of the Maoists, In Iraq we were stopping a rogue state and a genocidal madman repsonsible for nearly 1 million deaths, and whose money, power and nfluence financed thousands more.

We found chemical weapons, we found mass graves, we found a country with no freedom of religon, and we found a country SPONSERING terrorism, not Al qaeda but everyone from Islammic Jihad to Hamas, going so far as to giving publishers clearing house style checks for $25,000 to the families of murderous suicide bombers who killed women and children as their exclusive plot.

Vietnam was approved by the UN and the UN sent almost no troops leaving the US hanging. In Iraq The UN didn't approve and we have far more allies there then we did in Nam.

Again, please stfu about the nam comparisons. You don't get to make that call unless you know jack shit about either war or served in one.

You want nazi comparisons? Saddam was raised by the second in command of the prominent Muslim Nazi Al husseigni who helped orchestrate and support the holocaust supplying thousnads of muslim soldiers from the former ottoman empire for hitler,

I say we may have thousands dead, but in doing so we may have likely saved the lives of another million. I would gladly die for this war.

[mburbank]

How old are you? You could easily have the chance.

[Abcdxxxx]

It's simple Burbank. You LIKE the Vietnam one because it's simple shorthand that fits your agenda. Vietname was the war most everybody can agree was bad news. No matter that Vietnam has become code for "a bad war you can't win, and even if you win it, it won't really be winning" and that Iraq probably deserves to be known for being it's own mess entirely, unique and special that it is.

The Nazi, Hitler, Appeasement one just makes you uncomfortable. Especially when it's applied with relevant context not as an analogy but an extension of the same bigoted fascist mindset.

I agree, the Holocaust references are a bit much (remember, I think Mel Brooks has even done damage in that regard), but The Leftists adopted turnspeak years ago, and you didn't say shit. You just don't like Bush... but what else is new.

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/images/Husseini-Hilter-Berlin.jpg

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/images/pic-2_gif.jpg

See, so since it's not just an analogy, you're going to need some factual reason to dismiss it.

[mburbank]

I'm sorry, what were you saying that undermines the Vietnam analogy. I missed it, especially the part where everybody could agree that it was a bad war. It isn't almost everybody on Iraq, it's just sixty percent or so, but give it a few more years.

Mmmm. Ways in which Islmaic extremism isn't like appeasement. Tough, tough call.

Okay.
1.) They aren't a single unfied group, like, say, the Nazis.
2.) If they are like the Nazis, shouldn't we have a draft, war bonds, a totally redirected economy? If W believes this is in a league with that, shouldn't he be working hard to put us on the kind of WWII footing we had, concidering he's had both both houses of congress all this time?
W just said that Victory in Iraq was as inmportant as victory at Omaha Beach. IF that's true, how come he hasn't even tried to fight that fight?
3.) They don't have the budget the Nazis had.
4.) They don't have the army the nazis had.
5.) They don't have a leader that commands loyalty on even a remote par with Hitler.

The whole point of the Nazi/appeasment argument is it was the last war everybody agreed HAD to be fought. If W thought for a moment this was that, he'd have canned Rummy long ago, since he's secretary of defense and we are having such a bad time.

And, like I said, I'm more than willing to trade. In light of this particular new flight of fantasy, I'm off comparisons. I've decided Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. It's completely it's own unique clusterfuck. Vietnam was something we could get ourselves out of eventually. This may not be.

[Geggy]

Ok I know you're all sick of me comparing the nazis to the current bush administration but just take a look at this and think about it...

-George W. Bush//Adolf Hitler
-Dick Cheney//Adolf Eichmann or Karl Heinz Roverer (karl rove's grandpa)
-John Ashcroft//Hermann Goering
-GOP//SS
-Project for New American Century(PNAC)//National Socialist German Workers Party(NSDAP)
-September 11//Reichstag fire
-Patriot Act//Enabling Act
-Homeland Security//Fatherland Security
-Afghanistan//Poland
-War on terror//Phony War
-Baghad//Stalingrad
-Guantenamo Bay//Dachau
-Thugs at Abu Gharib//Brown shirts
-Arabs//Jews
-NSA//IBM
-no child left behind//hitler youth organization

Too many more to list...

[Geggy]

Siege Heil: The Bush-Rove-Schwarzenegger Nazi Nexus and the Destabilization of California

George W. Bush's grandfather helped finance the Nazi Party. Karl Rove's grandfather allegedly helped run the Nazi Party, and helped build the Birkenau Death Camp. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Austrian father volunteered for the infamous Nazi SA and became a ranking officer.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1006-08.htm

Edit: "Ah luv hitlah" -arnold

[AChimp]

The best thing about this thread is that all those guys in that picture have funny hats. It's like a Shriner convention.

[Abcdxxxx]

yeah and they don't speak fluent german or goosestep either.

what a fucking bimbo.

(edit: because i guess you really ARE that stupid...

it's their fascism combined with their end goals which are so similar. but forget similarities (like say, oh i don't know, the term aryan for example?) and do the fucking research for the actual outright ties between the nazis and islamic /arab supremacists. start with an event called the farhud)

[Archduke Tips]

The Nazis tried to establish peace on Earth by uniting under once race. The US is trying to establish peace on Earth by uniting under Democracy.

There you go.

[El Blanco]

bullshit bullshit bullshit

No breakdown of 9-11 like I've been telling you?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

1.) They aren't a single unfied group, like, say, the Nazis.

S the fact that Persians and Arabs, governments and para-military groups spanning several nations, all bound by a single, fundamentalist view of the world, isn't a sign of unity? What about this dreaded "Shia Crescent" I keep hearing about?

2.) If they are like the Nazis, shouldn't we have a draft, war bonds, a totally redirected economy? If W believes this is in a league with that, shouldn't he be working hard to put us on the kind of WWII footing we had, concidering he's had both both houses of congress all this time?

Just because Bush has failed to fully put this war in perspective for Americans doesn't mean the threat isn't there.

3.) They don't have the budget the Nazis had.

Huh? I'm not even sure what this means. I guess Hezbollah wasn't really using top of the line, British made night vision goggles and Iranian (via Russia) weaponry. Nope, just rocks and sticks.

You have some of the most oil rich nations in the world being led by Islamic radicals. How exactly do they not have the cash?

4.) They don't have the army the nazis had.

The average age in Iran is like 28. They have a pretty big, well trained standing army. That's just Iran.

Not to mention that the Palestinian population continues to boom, and all they do is breed generation of generation of angry, brainwashed young men ready to kill Zionists and other Westerners.

http://www.teachkidspeace.org/slideshow/2.jpg

http://www.teachkidspeace.org/slideshow/24.jpg


5.) They don't have a leader that commands loyalty on even a remote par with Hitler.

I dunno, anybody who can convince someone to strap a bomb around themself and take ut a bus or store is pretty "commanding."

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

Well first of all I'd like to thank Kevin for answering everypoint befor I could. The examples are far more outreaching except unlike the nazis they have nukes.

Vietnam was us trying to protect a foriegn country that would never really affect us from a bad form of government in a war we could not fight that would never really reach home.

Saddam, as just a part of the "Axis" as Bush calls it. Has been waging war againsnt our allies and calling us the great satan and making constant rehtoric of attacking us, as well does Iran and even Korea. Vietnam was a war the UN sent us into without sufficent backup. This war is to protect our allies and ourselves from a group of leaders with nuclear capability who is constantly LITERALLY threatening us.

You want a nazi comparison? Here's my comparison, when they cam for the jews we didn't stand up, when they came for the hindus and buddhists we didn't care. but next on the list is everyone else. Wahabi Islaam is far worse then communism and we need to fight with all we can to keep it from power.

We either die fighting it over there, or die when the nukes/gas/suicide bombers hit us at home.

Don't see a connection between Iraq and terrorism in america? Who cares? They support terrorism anywhere they can, from Israel to Kuwait, as soon as they would have become strong enough Saddam would simply support it in the US. Besides What makes those Israeli/arab/hindu lives more important then our own?

Would you not sacrifice one person to save 500? Because that's the equivalent of people Saddam has killed in cold blood compared to the people who have died taking him down. Do you really think he would never kill again or support more and further terrorism?

Would you sacrifice yourself to save 500 people? no? What if they were white and not arabic? Or european? Do they have to be american cause he called us the Great Satan time and time again, do you not think eventually he would go for us?

[Zhukov]

Here's my comparison, when they cam for the jews we didn't stand up, when they came for the hindus and buddhists we didn't care. but next on the list is everyone else.

Nice butcher of a popular poem (that was widely used by US social activists to support the anti-vietnam war drive).

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

Here's my comparison, when they cam for the jews we didn't stand up, when they came for the hindus and buddhists we didn't care. but next on the list is everyone else.

Nice butcher of a popular poem (that was widely used by US social activists to support the anti-vietnam war drive).

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

I wasn't quoting i was comparing

I was trying to compare wahabi islaam, they came for the jews first, then the hindus and buddhists in india, no they are expanding to the far east and earopeans and christians in africa.

Who the hell else is left but us when they are done everyhere else?

[Zhukov]

I didn't say you were quoting, I said you were butchering.

I found it funny that you used it, because the poem is mainly used to 'defend' communists and anti-vietnam war stances.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

how could that poem be anything but a call to arms about gathering threats?

[Abcdxxxx]

I found it funny that you used it, because the poem is mainly used to 'defend' communists and anti-vietnam war stances.


The hell it is. It was written by a Priest who supported Hitler before they sent him to Dachua. The poem wasn't meant to defend anyone - it was meant to explain to the communists that they are in danger too - obviously some people missed the point.

There isn't a Holocaust or tolerance museum or human rights cause in the world that hasn't appropriated the poem in some way.

[Zhukov]

There isn't a Holocaust or tolerance museum or human rights cause in the world that hasn't appropriated the poem in some way.
true. But there aren't many pro-war stances that use it, which is my fleeting point.

It wasn't a warning to communists, they had been taken care of first, if you recall.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

I can't think of a pro war stance that DOESNT use it. How could this poem possibly be interpreted as anti war?

[Abcdxxxx]

That's hilarious Zuhkov.... do you think Helter Skelter is about race wars too?

I have a hard time believing you're not already aware of this but - the poem is mainly used to justify action, both military or otherwise, against genocide and other injustices. You know, like all that "policing the world" stuff you object to. The poem addresses the type of thinking where one might say "it's just the Zionists they want to kill". People use it the same way they use the whole "well we would have never fought the Nazis in WWII then" argument. I'm sorry you took it so literally, and missed the larger statement there. That's why people keep having to "butcher" it to get the point across. You know, like just in case someone actually thinks it's a poem about communists written in 70's. That anyone would think it belongs at an anti-war rally is sort of sad.

[Zhukov]

Well I guess we just have had different personal experiences then.

My uncle tells me that when he got back from Vietnam they used to parade the returned soldiers onstage while somebody recited it, at an anti-war rally. This was at a time when Asian restaurants etc were being firebombed, and the police weren't worrying about them. So it would be in a "nobody gives a shit about the asians now, but they wont give a shit about you soon enough" context.

It has been used by the Greens party here in Australia to 'defend' refugees - changing the lyrics around somewhat...

"the poem is mainly used to justify action, both military or otherwise, against genocide and other injustices"

action against injustice or genocide... so an anti war protest, maybe? I've seen it hijacked by the 'left' more than the 'right', and I've never encountered it in a pro war light. Weird huh? But I never took it as a poem written about communists in the 70s, where did you get that from? Is that humour?

[Abcdxxxx]

You said:

the poem is mainly used to 'defend' communists and anti-vietnam war stances.

See, at the moment I see the poem mainly being evoked by the Pro-Israel contingent, or in relation to Darfur. I can't think of two more appropriate applications. It says to take genocide personally even when you are not the target. ...or that "their" problem IS your problem. I don't know man, do you think the "Never Again" slogan is about pacifism?

[Zhukov]

Pacifism and war are not the only options. Action against war through non-pacifist means is how I see the poem, and just like countless other people, I guess I'll interpret it how I want and you do it how you want.

I'm not commenting on what the poem is about, just how I have seen it been apropriated. I see now that it has gone both ways.

[Abcdxxxx]

Action AGAINST war?

The poem doesn't address war at all.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

We found chemical weapons, we found mass graves, we found a country with no freedom of religon, and we found a country SPONSERING terrorism, not Al qaeda but everyone from Islammic Jihad to Hamas, going so far as to giving publishers clearing house style checks for $25,000 to the families of murderous suicide bombers who killed women and children as their exclusive plot.

Again, please stfu about the nam comparisons. You don't get to make that call unless you know jack shit about either war or served in one.



Chemical weapons? Sure. 500 degraded shells scattered across a country. No freedom of religion? Women weren't required to wear the veil (they are now), Christians weren't murdered in the streets (they are now), and why do I give a damn about Hamas? They never attacked us.

Also, I love that attitude of "if you weren't in the wars, stfu". I served 10 years in the military, and I recognize that it doesn't give me any special credentials as to political analysis of any given war, nor does it give me the right to intimidate other people out of giving their opinion.

Just saying.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

the fact that Persians and Arabs, governments and para-military groups spanning several nations, all bound by a single, fundamentalist view of the world, isn't a sign of unity?

Huh? Ask 9 muslims their opinion on any religious matter, and you'll get 11 answers.

[Abcdxxxx]

If 9 million Muslims can only come up with 11 different answers, then they better try harder and come up with a 12th that involves tolerance, and co-existance.

Since you seem to think asking questions works...

Ask the hundreds of American families who have died at the hands of PLO related terrorism exactly why we should care. Start with Shoshana Greenbaum's family. Ask them to explain to you how Hamas ever hurt their American daughter who was murdered in a Sbarro's pizza.

[mburbank]

Kev, so you're problem with W is that he's soft on terrorism? I can dig it. Since you are listing the army of Iran, a country we are not at war with yet, and the entire male population of Palestine as part of the enemy army, and since you are on board with stuff W is only paying partisan lip service to, you might want to see if Pat Buchanaan is concidering another run.

If the "islamo Facists" have a unified world view, why are Sunnis and Shiites killing each other?

There is no Pan Arab unifying charismatic leader anything like Hitler. That doesn't make it not a problem. It just makes Rumsfelds comparison ridiculous.

If you want to compare anyone to Chamberlain, I believe you can easily find a nice pic of Rummy himself shaking ahnds with Sadaam, sent as an Envoy by the Gipper All Mighty at a time when we knew he was a thug who used torture and rape and after we already knew he'd used chemical weapons. I'll take Moral and intellectual instruction elsewhere.

Pro or anti the war in Iraq, you ought to want Rumsfeld gone. In fact, if you are pro, you should want him gone more, since he is a highly visible whipping boy.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

If 9 million Muslims can only come up with 11 different answers,

I said 9, not 9 million.

Oops.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

If the "islamo Facists" have a unified world view, why are Sunnis and Shiites killing each other?


Habit. :)

Historically, they have NEVER gotten along, even in the face of a common enemy.

But why talk about that, when we can just simplify the crap out of everything, even if it means losing sight of a very good method of dealing with them?

[Abcdxxxx]

Then your history doesn't include an Arab League, or an Islamic World Council. It doesn't include these fueding Arab nations joining forces to attack Israel.

Unlike the Nazis, the Islamic fascists "answer" to the call of many leaders... dead ones...Muhammed ring a bell?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Then your history doesn't include an Arab League, or an Islamic World Council. It doesn't include these fueding Arab nations joining forces to attack Israel.

Unlike the Nazis, the Islamic fascists "answer" to the call of many leaders... dead ones...Muhammed ring a bell?

No offense, but do you even know the difference between Sunni and Shi'ite Islam?

[Abcdxxxx]

Which one is rejecting the calls for a return of the Caliphite?
Which one of them is excluded from the Arab League, The Islamic World Council, the Muslim Brotherhood, or any of the other Pan-Islamicist, Pan-Arab unions? Ever hear of Al-Banna, or Qutb?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Which one is rejecting the calls for a return of the Caliphite?
Which one of them is excluded from the Arab League, The Islamic World Council, the Muslim Brotherhood, or any of the other Pan-Islamicist, Pan-Arab unions? Ever hear of Al-Banna, or Qutb?

First, the pan-Arab unions are a joke. Hell, they couldn't even sustain the embargo in the 70s.

Historically, the Arabs have never been able to stick together, even in the face of a common enemy...even during Saladin's time.

The Sunnis hate the Shi'ites, the Shi'ites hate EVERYBODY (they are the losers of the Muslim world), and BOTH groups hate their own members, based on region.

Hell, having them try to restore the caliphate is the best thing that could ever happen, from our point of view. Everyone capable of doing the job would be assassinated by rival factions, until they were left with some drooling idiot tugged every direction at once by the remains of said factions.

The resulting chaos could only serve our interests.

[El Blanco]

So, current chaos is a bad thing, but future chaos is a good thing?

[mburbank]

"Unlike the Nazis, the Islamic fascists "answer" to the call of many leaders... dead ones...Muhammed ring a bell?"
-abcdgxgsdclsndku


Now if anyone ever puts a gun to my head and says what's the single stupidest thing Abcdx has ever posted, I'll have an answer. I'd been loosing sleep over that possability.

[Abcdxxxx]

Historically, the Arabs have never been able to stick together, even in the face of a common enemy...even during Saladin's time.

The Sunnis hate the Shi'ites, the Shi'ites hate EVERYBODY (they are the losers of the Muslim world), and BOTH groups hate their own members, based on region.


So their failures void out their existance? Their incompetence changes history? The Middle Eastern Islamic world is preoccupied by the vision of Al-Banna at the moment. Of course they'll eat each other alive if they ever were to succeed... of course they hate each other...and really, most of this stems from self hate and inferiority to begin with. So what? Should their deep seeded hatred towards Palestinians be an assurance to Israelis ? 'Course not. Even if Arabs are their own worst enemies, it doesn't change the threat to outsiders.

[mburbank]

BUT IT DOES INTERFERE WITH RUMSFELDS STUPID ASS ANALOGY WHICH IS WHAT THS THREAD IS ABOUT.

[Abcdxxxx]

It's not an analogy, you bozo.

Besides, Rumsfeld just repeated a point being made more and more frequently.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So, current chaos is a bad thing, but future chaos is a good thing?

Pretty much, because the current chaos is directed at us.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Historically, the Arabs have never been able to stick together, even in the face of a common enemy...even during Saladin's time.

The Sunnis hate the Shi'ites, the Shi'ites hate EVERYBODY (they are the losers of the Muslim world), and BOTH groups hate their own members, based on region.


So their failures void out their existance? Their incompetence changes history? The Middle Eastern Islamic world is preoccupied by the vision of Al-Banna at the moment. Of course they'll eat each other alive if they ever were to succeed... of course they hate each other...and really, most of this stems from self hate and inferiority to begin with. So what? Should their deep seeded hatred towards Palestinians be an assurance to Israelis ? 'Course not. Even if Arabs are their own worst enemies, it doesn't change the threat to outsiders.

Sure it does, if we'd be smart enough to manipulate it, rather than blunder around swinging blindly.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It's not an analogy, you bozo.

Besides, Rumsfeld just repeated a point being made more and more frequently.

The point is incorrect, however.

These clowns are more like the situation in Yugoslavia than Nazi Germany.

[Abcdxxxx]

Yeah, I remember the days when people would sit around talking about how stupid Arabs are. What's happening is very calculated, and orchestrated. They're not blundering idiots.

There were Islamic countries with work camps during WWII. Life in most all Islamic countries is a life under totalitarian rule. Islamicism and all the other nicknames for it describe religious fascism with militaristic methods towards obtaining their goals of world domination. Am I wrong? Then when did acknowleding the truth become incorrect?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Yeah, I remember the days when people would sit around talking about how stupid Arabs are. What's happening is very calculated, and orchestrated. They're not blundering idiots.

There were Islamic countries with work camps during WWII. Life in most all Islamic countries is a life under totalitarian rule. Islamicism and all the other nicknames for it describe religious fascism with militaristic methods towards obtaining their goals of world domination. Am I wrong? Then when did acknowleding the truth become incorrect?

No, they're as smart as anyone else, but they can't stop bickering with each other.

There were plenty of European countries with work camps. Romania, etc. Are they Nazis today because of acts more than 60 years ago?

The comparison is meaningless. The Islamics aren't Nazis, and this isn't WWII.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

the fact that Persians and Arabs, governments and para-military groups spanning several nations, all bound by a single, fundamentalist view of the world, isn't a sign of unity?

Huh? Ask 9 muslims their opinion on any religious matter, and you'll get 11 answers.

Uh, yeah, but where does this stand in the face of the Zionist/Christian/Western Crusader infidel threat?

You seem to work under the assumption that Sunni and Shiite, and Persian and Arab have never united under one cause for the sake of greater Islam. This simply isn't consistent with history. As abc said, of course they will rip each other apart once they can. I'm guessing the Germans, Italians, and Japanese would've done the same had they managed to wipe out every single Jew and conquered continental Europe and most of Asia. Is that a consolation to you?

[Abcdxxxx]

Totally meaningless.

http://www.geocities.com/AntiJihad/Photos/pal_nazi1.jpg
http://www.israel-wat.com/nazi.jpg
http://www.aijac.org.au/review/2001/images/mufti_in_berlin.jpg
http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/images/Nazi%20Salute%20in%20Palestine_jpg_jpg_jpg.jpg
http://www.honestreporting.com/images/papoliceheil.jpg
http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/images/6-Mein%20Kampf_jpg_jpg_jpg.jpg

[The Good Reverend Roger]

the fact that Persians and Arabs, governments and para-military groups spanning several nations, all bound by a single, fundamentalist view of the world, isn't a sign of unity?

Huh? Ask 9 muslims their opinion on any religious matter, and you'll get 11 answers.

Uh, yeah, but where does this stand in the face of the Zionist/Christian/Western Crusader infidel threat?

You seem to work under the assumption that Sunni and Shiite, and Persian and Arab have never united under one cause for the sake of greater Islam. This simply isn't consistent with history. As abc said, of course they will rip each other apart once they can. I'm guessing the Germans, Italians, and Japanese would've done the same had they managed to wipe out every single Jew and conquered continental Europe and most of Asia. Is that a consolation to you?

1. Same as usual. You'll notice that only about 1/3 of the ME gives a damn that we're in Iraq, for example.

2. Difference is, the Arabs can't wait.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Totally meaningless.


Yep. Totally meaningless.

A few retarded palis who want to piss Israel off, and events and alliances of 60+ years ago do not make a pack of feuding theocrats into Nazis.

This is the problem wirh Rumsfeld. Instead of trying to view the problem as it IS, he wants to make it fit an old, recognized pattern (preferably one with loads of propaganda value, of course).

This isn't a smart thing to do. Instead of looking at the enemy as he IS, you start seeing everything he does in a way that makes it fit the preconceived pattern. Same as he did at the end of the invasion of Iraq, when he refused to admit that there was a burgeoning insurgency...it was "just a few dead-enders", as I recall.

It seems Rumsfeld never learns.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Arabs can't wait? What the heck does that even mean?

I know muslims who have no worries about the conflict with Israel, b/c they know the Israelis are being out populated. Saying now that Arabs have no patience, no organization, and no loyalty shows a lack in foresight, imo. A generation of young men are being raised to hate Israel, hate the West, and have been indoctrinated with a warped sense of history.

I think radical muslims have shown a great deal of patience. Remember "Spain to Iraq"??? (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060727/D8J4AUMO0.html) The notion that all of this is about Israel's 1967 borders and American troops in Saudi Arabia is absurd. This is about long standing grudges that they intend to remedy.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Arabs can't wait? What the heck does that even mean?

I know muslims who have no worries about the conflict with Israel, b/c they know the Israelis are being out populated. Saying now that Arabs have no patience, no organization, and no loyalty shows a lack in foresight, imo. A generation of young men are being raised to hate Israel, hate the West, and have been indoctrinated with a warped sense of history.


Sure. And I know Muslims that think Israel is just fine.

But we aren't talking about a few muslimswe know. We're talking about the Arab culture as a whole.

And what I said was that they can't stop bickering. And that is all that is required, if we'd just take advantage of it.

[Abcdxxxx]

And it seems like you should take your own advice and view the problem as it IS. There was nothing uniquely Rumsfeld about the statement. Sorry.

But okay, they read Mein Kampf simply to piss Israel off. They harbor Nazi war criminals, simply to piss Israel off. Or wait, maybe that happened 60+ years ago? Maybe these people aren't running fascists governments with genocidal militaristic goals? Okay fine, you don't believe that events like the Farhud in Iraq (which is irrefutable) were largely influential in the current situation there today. That the entire notion of Pan-Arabism was promoted by Muslims connected to the Nazi party can not be ignored because six decades have past.

I get it though. You edit history to accomodate your argument of the moment. Pan-Islamism has never succeeded, so it's as good an non-existant. Islamic Nazism never had it's day in the sun, so that means it didn't exist, and speaking of the current movement in like minded terms is "meaningless". What else is new, huh Reverand Ziggy?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Every muslim in the "ME" doesn't need to hate the West in order to constitute a problem. Again, you have two nation states, several terrorist organizations, some political and some not, who all agree on some very violent things.

I too believe that most muslims/Arabs/Persians/etc. (if this is what you're arguing) would choose more freedom and modernity as opposed to the strict Islamic alternative, but this doesn't mean 15% of the muslim world (certainly still a sizeable #) wants the same.

There are things that bind muslims in the Middle East, and a lotofthem aren't very pleasant. The potential for this justto fester and grow is real, and shouldn't be disregarded.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Pan-Islamism has never succeeded, so it's as good an non-existant.

Pretty much. It's about as much of a threat to the USA as communism is.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

"Unlike the Nazis, the Islamic fascists "answer" to the call of many leaders... dead ones...Muhammed ring a bell?"
-abcdgxgsdclsndku


Now if anyone ever puts a gun to my head and says what's the single stupidest thing Abcdx has ever posted, I'll have an answer. I'd been loosing sleep over that possability.

Max, I'd like for you to elaborate on this comment. Do you think he's incorrect b/c Muhammed simply doesn't hold much stature in the "ME"? Did Muhammed preach or practice peaceful Islam?

Which is it?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Every muslim in the "ME" doesn't need to hate the West in order to constitute a problem. Again, you have two nation states, several terrorist organizations, some political and some not, who all agree on some very violent things.

I too believe that most muslims/Arabs/Persians/etc. (if this is what you're arguing) would choose more freedom and modernity as opposed to the strict Islamic alternative, but this doesn't mean 15% of the muslim world (certainly still a sizeable #) wants the same.

There are things that bind muslims in the Middle East, and a lotofthem aren't very pleasant. The potential for this justto fester and grow is real, and shouldn't be disregarded.

Oh, no argument there.

But - speaking as the Taft fan that I am - why is this our problem?

I have no gripe whatsoever with kicking the living shit out of the people that actually attacked us...but I can't see why we should suddenly be the cop for the whole Muslim world.

[Abcdxxxx]

Pretty much. It's about as much of a threat to the USA as communism is.

So the comparison to Communism works for you? I guess you and Rumsfeld are on the same page after all then.

Islamic supremacists have actually attacked US targets you know. It's not inflated boogie man fiction. It's not a myth.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Pretty much. It's about as much of a threat to the USA as communism is.

So the comparison to Communism works for you? I guess you and Rumsfeld are on the same page after all then.

Islamic supremacists have actually attacked US targets you know. It's not inflated boogie man fiction. It's not a myth.


As a metaphor. They are neither Nazis nor Commies. They are theocrats. Every bit as bad, but not the same thing.

And, yes, they have attacked us. Then we went off and invaded one of the only secular countries in the ME, instead of concentrating on putting the boot to the Taliban and AQ.

[Abcdxxxx]

The threat isn't defined by the response.

Our response has absolutely nothing to do with how appropriate any analogy might be. Tossing in how full of rainbows secular Iraq was really doesn't do anything to disprove the Nazi influence/ties/comparisons. Theocrats are not the problem, but theocrats with Final Solution goals are. Can you follow that, or do you hate your own government so much that we've lost you to an imaginary world of cognitive dissonance?

[mburbank]

http://www.billmon.org/archives/rumsfeld%20saddam.jpg
http://extremecatholic.blogspot.com/images/chamberlain-hitler.jpg

[mburbank]

"Our response has absolutely nothing to do with how appropriate any analogy might be."
-Abcdefghij

Oh, so NOW these are Analogies? Have you ever wondered if you were ever wrong aboiut anything ever? I don't mean in this thread, or even on a message board, I mean at all. Like, say you thought a TV show you wanted to watch was going to be on, or there was enough cereal left in a box for a decent breakfast. ARE YOU A HUMAN BEING OR JUST A GLORIFIED TOASTER THAT POSTS?!?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

1. Same as usual. You'll notice that only about 1/3 of the ME gives a damn that we're in Iraq, for example.

If 1/3 of the "ME" thinks anything, we should probably pay attention to it.

That's a lot of people, despite what you might think about Arab feuds and in fighting.

[Abcdxxxx]

"Our response has absolutely nothing to do with how appropriate any analogy might be."
-Abcdefghij

Oh, so NOW these are Analogies?

we were talking about the communism comparison at the time for one thing, which is an analogy....anyway don't start foaming over yourself because i conceeded to some semantics of yours just to try and get a point across to you.

did you research the farhud yet?

[mburbank]

Did you research being a glorified toaster? You didn't 'concede semantics'. You found it useful to use them and forgot you denied them. You are a blowhard.

Bush was at it again today. This is as serious as Hitler and Stalin and Lex Luthor. Okay, not Luthor.

W's gradpa was a facist sympathiser. W's dad had more than one person had to resign from his presidential campaign for being members of European facist groups, old money WWII era pals of his Dad's.

W himself tiptoes through the bluebells with Saudi Princes holding hands, the same princes who rule the totalitarian regime you.

Do any of these things make W the same as Hitler? No. He is a far lesser problem.

The many and various threads of Arab extremism may well have goals similar to WWII facists. The same goals don't make them the same thing. That's cynical sophistry born more from the fact there are less than three months left before the midterms and the party in power has shitty poll #'s than any facts on the ground. It seems clear to me our Pres hardly believes his statements himself, since he hasn't raised any taxes or called for a draft, actions which would be entirely appropriatte if he thought we were facing Stalin or Hitler.

Is your argument that W et al ACCIDENTALY are hitting the nail in the head, that their cynical electioneering happens to also be true? If so, where is the groundswell (or any swell at all) to throw these bastards out of office and replace them with people who not only desribe the threat accurately, but face it?

[Abcdxxxx]

Okay. More garbled posturing about how evil Bush is. Coming from you, it's just noise. You reject the comparison because of who made it, not because you have any grasp on the relevance of Nazism and Fascism to the current situation.

Like I said, I've given you something to go read up on. Come back when you retort goes beyond "Bush and Co. are bad". Kevin had the patience to respond to your 5 points of idiocy - if you have a rebutal, then let's hear it. I've then provided you with a historical link but rather then do your homework you just resort to the same shit.

So are you prepared to argue in full that Islamic fascism is non-existant, and that it has no relation to the Nazi party of the past, either literally, or in spirit? I don't care who said it...is the statement accurate? I'm challenging you to answer. Try to do it with facts rather then flippancy.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The threat isn't defined by the response.

Our response has absolutely nothing to do with how appropriate any analogy might be. Tossing in how full of rainbows secular Iraq was really doesn't do anything to disprove the Nazi influence/ties/comparisons. Theocrats are not the problem, but theocrats with Final Solution goals are. Can you follow that, or do you hate your own government so much that we've lost you to an imaginary world of cognitive dissonance?

Ho ho! Because I disagree with Rumsfeld, I hate America? I guess disagreeing with the SecDef puts me smack into Berkeley with the hippies.

And I disagree. Theocrats ARE the problem, final solution goals or not. Theocracies are the absolute worst form of government that exists, both in terms of living conditions and civil liberties.

Scratch a theocrat, and you'll find a fanatic. And it is this fanaticism that causes "final solution" thinking, whether the fanatic be fascist, communist, or religious.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

1. Same as usual. You'll notice that only about 1/3 of the ME gives a damn that we're in Iraq, for example.

If 1/3 of the "ME" thinks anything, we should probably pay attention to it.

That's a lot of people, despite what you might think about Arab feuds and in fighting.

So what? There's a hell of a lot of people in Laos, and we don't care what THEY think.

Fact: the ME is only our problem because we have CHOSEN to make it our problem. Afghanistan (remember them?) is a different ballgame, though, and rated a different response...a response which we half-assed.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I agree with you on Afghanistan, however I think you're totally in the dark on the Middle East.

I mean, you acknowledge that like 9/11 happened, right? To argue that the Middle East wasn't a problem prior to Iraq is absurd.

Saudis create the propaganda, the Iranians and the Syrians fund it, and the Lebanese and the palestinians act upon it. It of course goes well beyond the Middle East, b/c Islamic extremists are causing trouble all around the world.

Where do they pray to?

You seem like a reasonable person to me, but you also strike me as the type who wants it boths ways. You acknowldge that there's a war on terrorism (perhaps?), but are unwilling to address the root causes. It's all a collection of uncontrolable, isolated incidents. Hey, we've always had terrorism, right? Hey, Arabs have always been killing each other right? A bomb goes of in Istanbul, a plot is foiled in England, and a critical film maker is executed in Holland. Hey, these are criminal matters conducted by isolated actors with no binding purpose. Yup yup.

You also at one point argued that Saddam Hussein was a secular ruler with no interest in Islamic terrorism (maybe not in this thread, but whatever). This is very false, and it's also intellectually dishonest. After all, I'm sure you're aware that Hussein compensated the families of suicide bombers in Palestine (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1199662004). He also used Islam as a political device, one that allowed him to present himself as the political leader of the faith, and the ruler of the stabilizing force in the ME. This is one of the reasons he built so many large and beautiful mosques (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/baghdad-mosques.htm) there. One of them held a Koran written in his own blood, 28 liters donated over the course of two years. Quite the secularist, eh?

Maybe then you'll say "well, he had nothing to do with Al Qaeda". This is a more reasonable argument, but also not entirely accurate. Granted, the Bush admin. perhaps made it hard to explore any of the truthiness in this, b/c they pursued and exaggerated everything they could in order to connect the dots in the rush to war. However, this doesn't change the fact that even the 9/11 Report concedes that Iraqi agents met with Taliban officials in Afghanistan, and then with Bin Laden in 1998. Saddam was certainly weary of him, but that had more to do with Hussein's desire to patch things up with the Saudis at the time (p. 66 if you own the report). Yossef Bodansky also confirms these feelers in his book "Bin Laden: The man who declared war on America."

Is it so unlikely to you that Saddam would use thse terrorists were they ever to serve his purposes (sort of the way Iran uses Hezbollah)? Your claim that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism and/or Al Qaeda is wrong on both counts. Iraq posed a threat to the entire Middle East, as well as their own suffering people.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I agree with you on Afghanistan, however I think you're totally in the dark on the Middle East.

I mean, you acknowledge that like 9/11 happened, right? To argue that the Middle East wasn't a problem prior to Iraq is absurd.[/i]

Sure, parts of it were. I remember Beirut, for example. Putting that on par with 911 is wandering into hyperbole, however.

[quote=KevinTheOmnivore]Saudis create the propaganda, the Iranians and the Syrians fund it, and the Lebanese and the palestinians act upon it. It of course goes well beyond the Middle East, b/c Islamic extremists are causing trouble all around the world.

Sure. I'm mostly interested in the ones that mess with us, though. I really couldn't care less about what happens in Gaza, or Indonesia, etc.

Where do they pray to?

Mecca, Jerusalem, Medina, and Qum, in that order (though most only pray toward Mecca). What's that got to do with anything?

You seem like a reasonable person to me, but you also strike me as the type who wants it boths ways. You acknowldge that there's a war on terrorism (perhaps?),

Naw. I find it hard to take a war on a tactic seriously. That's like having a war on ambushes. I am more interested in destroying a particular group (Al Qaeda), and severely punishing another (the Taliban).


but are unwilling to address the root causes. It's all a collection of uncontrolable, isolated incidents. Hey, we've always had terrorism, right? Hey, Arabs have always been killing each other right? A bomb goes of in Istanbul, a plot is foiled in England, and a critical film maker is executed in Holland. Hey, these are criminal matters conducted by isolated actors with no binding purpose. Yup yup.

I think you're giving them FAR too much organizational credit.

You also at one point argued that Saddam Hussein was a secular ruler with no interest in Islamic terrorism (maybe not in this thread, but whatever). This is very false, and it's also intellectually dishonest. After all, I'm sure you're aware that Hussein compensated the families of suicide bombers in Palestine (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1199662004). He also used Islam as a political device, one that allowed him to present himself as the political leader of the faith, and the ruler of the stabilizing force in the ME. This is one of the reasons he built so many large and beautiful mosques (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/baghdad-mosques.htm) there. One of them held a Koran written in his own blood, 28 liters donated over the course of two years. Quite the secularist, eh?

*shrug* So he knew how to throw the propaganda. He really wasn't fooling anyone that didn't want to be fooled. You might notice the number of Muslim nations that signed up to fight him in the gulf war.

Maybe then you'll say "well, he had nothing to do with Al Qaeda". This is a more reasonable argument, but also not entirely accurate. Granted, the Bush admin. perhaps made it hard to explore any of the truthiness in this, b/c they pursued and exaggerated everything they could in order to connect the dots in the rush to war. However, this doesn't change the fact that even the 9/11 Report concedes that Iraqi agents met with Taliban officials in Afghanistan, and then with Bin Laden in 1998. Saddam was certainly weary of him, but that had more to do with Hussein's desire to patch things up with the Saudis at the time (p. 66 if you own the report). Yossef Bodansky also confirms these feelers in his book "Bin Laden: The man who declared war on America."

It's been quite a while since I've read through the 911 report. I'll have to re-read it and get back to you.

Iraq posed a threat to the entire Middle East, as well as their own suffering people.

I don't doubt that. I just don't care.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Mecca, Jerusalem, Medina, and Qum, in that order (though most only pray toward Mecca). What's that got to do with anything?

Apparently nothing. If we just capture Bin Laden and stopthe Taliban, it'll all come to an end, right?

Naw. I find it hard to take a war on a tactic seriously. That's like having a war on ambushes. I am more interested in destroying a particular group (Al Qaeda), and severely punishing another (the Taliban).

So wait, a war on a tactic is silly, but a war on two monolithic organizations will solve the whole problem? I want to catch Bin Laden and the gang just as bad as you do, but "Al Qaeda n Iraq" and "Al Qaeda in England" need Bin Laden at this point like Microsoft needs Bill Gates. Al Qaeda has become a franchise like Subway, and all you need to do now is kill infidels and hate Israel/America/the West in order to carry the banner. You have me all wrong. While I do believe there is a binding philosophy that makes them a potentially dangerous coordinated threat, it's there anarchic character that makes them so dangerous.

But there [i]are[/] sources. There are intellectual sources, as well as financial sources. And these actors are organized, well funded, and driven.


*shrug* So he knew how to throw the propaganda. He really wasn't fooling anyone that didn't want to be fooled. You might notice the number of Muslim nations that signed up to fight him in the gulf war.

Bin Laden helped fortify Saudi Arabia's borders against Saddam during the Gulf War. Less than a decade later he was talking to agents from his country. Ya know, the enemy of my enemy, etc.

You put far too much faith in things you consider to be absolute, like alliances and clans. The story of the Middle East is full of strange bed fellows dealing with what were perceived as greater threats at the time.

Saddam was an opportunist and a mad man. The fact that he could care less in reality about Islam only enhances the likelihood that he'd exploit it for its violent potential in my mind.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Mecca, Jerusalem, Medina, and Qum, in that order (though most only pray toward Mecca). What's that got to do with anything?

Apparently nothing. If we just capture Bin Laden and stopthe Taliban, it'll all come to an end, right?

Naw. I find it hard to take a war on a tactic seriously. That's like having a war on ambushes. I am more interested in destroying a particular group (Al Qaeda), and severely punishing another (the Taliban).

So wait, a war on a tactic is silly, but a war on two monolithic organizations will solve the whole problem? I want to catch Bin Laden and the gang just as bad as you do, but "Al Qaeda n Iraq" and "Al Qaeda in England" need Bin Laden at this point like Microsoft needs Bill Gates. Al Qaeda has become a franchise like Subway, and all you need to do now is kill infidels and hate Israel/America/the West in order to carry the banner. You have me all wrong. While I do believe there is a binding philosophy that makes them a potentially dangerous coordinated threat, it's there anarchic character that makes them so dangerous.

But there are[/] sources. There are intellectual sources, as well as financial sources. And these actors are organized, well funded, and driven.


*shrug* So he knew how to throw the propaganda. He really wasn't fooling anyone that didn't want to be fooled. You might notice the number of Muslim nations that signed up to fight him in the gulf war.

Bin Laden helped fortify Saudi Arabia's borders against Saddam during the Gulf War. Less than a decade later he was talking to agents from his country. Ya know, the enemy of my enemy, etc.

You put far too much faith in things you consider to be absolute, like alliances and clans. The story of the Middle East is full of strange bed fellows dealing with what were perceived as greater threats at the time.

Saddam was an opportunist and a mad man. The fact that he could care less in reality about Islam only enhances the likelihood that he'd exploit it for its violent potential in my mind.

See, here is where we differ. You want to "solve" the problem (good luck with that). I just want [i]revenge. Hell, had we dealt with Afghanistan properly, the Muslims would have found someone else to play with.

Lord Kitchener said it best: "The Arab is at your feet or at your throat."

[KevinTheOmnivore]

There will always be a Taliban, there will always be a Bin Laden. We will be dealing with violent, anti-western Islamic extremism long after these two things expire, unless we do something about it.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

There will always be a Taliban, there will always be a Bin Laden. We will be dealing with violent, anti-western Islamic extremism long after these two things expire, unless we do something about it.

We had a chance to do something about it, with the world's blessings.

So naturally, we screwed it up. Instead of making an example out of Afghanistan, we let ourselves get distracted.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

How is it that a Taliban free Afghanistan would serve as an example, but a Saddam free Iraq means nothing?

Afghanistan was a vessel. It could've just as easily been Sudan, maybe even Indonesia.

I think your focus on soil and brand names is misguided.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

How is it that a Taliban free Afghanistan would serve as an example, but a Saddam free Iraq means nothing?

Afghanistan was a vessel. It could've just as easily been Sudan, maybe even Indonesia.

I think your focus on soil and brand names is misguided.

Who said anything about a free Afghanistan, period? I honestly don't care about any other nation's freedom. They want freedom, they kill the tyrants. Otherwise, they aren't worth bothering with. What I was proposing was the severe punishment Afghanistan should have received.

And if it was those other nations instead, I'd say the same thing.

Brand names make the world go around.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

So you really only care about killing people, right?

As long as we kill a bunch of towel heads, we can call it even?

[ziggytrix]

What else is new, huh Reverand Ziggy?

This guy isn't my character, if that's what you're implying. I assure you, I'm quite done arguing in this particular forum. The proverbial dead horse is a fine powder now as far as I'm concerned.

That hardly means I can't find some sick satisfaction in these pissing contests. It only means that I no longer wish to participate in this particular form of 'debate'.

cheers,
Z

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So you really only care about killing people, right?

As long as we kill a bunch of towel heads, we can call it even?

Let me know when you want to debate, rather than putting words in my mouth, mkay?

I was pretty sure you were better than that.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

What else is new, huh Reverand Ziggy?

This guy isn't my character, if that's what you're implying. I assure you, I'm quite done arguing in this particular forum. The proverbial dead horse is a fine powder now as far as I'm concerned.

That hardly means I can't find some sick satisfaction in these pissing contests. It only means that I no longer wish to participate in this particular form of 'debate'.

cheers,
Z

I'm beginning to see what you are talking about.

Both people I've been debating with have gone to great lengths to put words in my mouth, rather than to answer what I actually said.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

You two should date.

You yourself said you only care about revenge, so please don't accuse me of being the flippant one, Jack. If punishing Afghanistan because it feels good is the best you got, ok, I'm fine with that. But please don't resort to the old message board crutch of "I'm so above this board and its methods!" Congratulations, you're a shining city on the hill for the rest of us to aspire towards.

Let me know when you want to stop pouting and pick up what was a pretty good discussion.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

You two should date.

You yourself said you only care about revenge, so please don't accuse me of being the flippant one, Jack. If punishing Afghanistan because it feels good is the best you got, ok, I'm fine with that. But please don't resort to the old message board crutch of "I'm so above this board and its methods!" Congratulations, you're a shining city on the hill for the rest of us to aspire towards.

Let me know when you want to stop pouting and pick up what was a pretty good discussion.

Heh. I said we should have taken revenge on the country that helped harm us.

You took that to "we should kill all towelheads", or some such rubbish.

I'd say the same thing if it had been Italy, or Sweden.

But for some reason, you decided to make it a racial issue. You want to poison the well? Do it on someone else's time.
Or you can respond to what I actually said.

You decide.

[ziggytrix]

Sure, we could go on a double with you and ABCD to see that new Oliver Stone debacle. And to show what a good sport I am, I'll even buy the first round of popcorn. ;)

[Abcdxxxx]

Damn Ziggy, passive aggressive much? He just gave me flashbacks.

Reverand - if you want to debate, you're going to need to come to terms with the fact that we're not all going to share in your disjointed logic and see contradictory statements as sensible responses. I understand, your stance could be complex...if that's the case, why not stick to arguments based around factual information and lay off the "I just don't care" arguments. If you take the time, we'll take the time. I'm not going to make it easy on you to agree with me, or even like me... that's how I'll know you really get it once you do come around and agree with me, even just a little bit. Otherwise, you'll feel like this is a waste of time and get all personal like DJ Ziggytrix.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Spare me. "The Arab is at your feet or at your throat," am I right?

I frankly don't care about what you think of muslims and/or Arabs in general. People can hate each other all they like, as long as they do not act upon it, be it through terrorism, financing terrorism, or outright war.

You said we should punish Afghanistan, punish the Taliban, and I guess punish specific members of Al Qaeda. You've utterly failed to explain how doing this would end the problem, or make us any safer, which is what this is really all about, correct?

You and I are in agreement that this ultimately needs to be about American national security. I think your theory on how to attain this is terribly short sighted, and frankly wrong. But I actually have more respect for it, because it at least seems to be founded in a theoretically "realist" approach (this is in fact why I think this is a liberal war, if only the liberals could figure that out).

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Spare me. "The Arab is at your feet or at your throat," am I right?

I frankly don't care about what you think of muslims and/or Arabs in general. People can hate each other all they like, as long as they do not act upon it, be it through terrorism, financing terrorism, or outright war.

You said we should punish Afghanistan, punish the Taliban, and I guess punish specific members of Al Qaeda. You've utterly failed to explain how doing this would end the problem, or make us any safer, which is what this is really all about, correct?

You and I are in agreement that this ultimately needs to be about American national security. I think your theory on how to attain this is terribly short sighted, and frankly wrong. But I actually have more respect for it, because it at least seems to be founded in a theoretically "realist" approach (this is in fact why I think this is a liberal war, if only the liberals could figure that out).

You go around expecting this crop of liberals to figure ANYTHING out, and you're going to be waiting a long time. There are no Harry Trumans or George Washingtons waiting in the wings.

As for my theory? It has worked in the past, when dealing with the culture in question. You aren't going to scare a fundamentalist Muslim with death in battle, but he also knows he doesn't get his 70-whatever virgins if he's just squashed like a bug.

Basically, I'd have had a stealth bomber or three over Kabul, etc, by September 12th. Mullah Omar would have been given one (1) chance to hand over Bin Ladin, with a deadline to agree of 5 minutes, and 1 day to actually comply.

Whether he did or not, our point would have been made. If he did, he'd have been forced to back down, losing much face. If he didn't, Kabul would be a glass-bottomed lake, and again, our point would have been made. At least it would have been made much more effectively than our blundering around in Iraq has accomplished.

Kitchener did just fine with this sort of lesson, and he didn't have the weapons we have today.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

It's Fascism -- And It's Islamic
By Victor Davis Hanson

George Bush recently declared that we are at war with "Islamic fascism." Muslim-American groups were quick to express furor at the expression. Middle Eastern autocracies complained that it was provocative and insensitive.

Critics of the term chosen by the president, however, should remember what al-Qaida, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas and other extremist Muslim groups have said and done. Like the fascists of the 1930s, the leaders of these groups are authoritarians who brook no dissent in their efforts to impose a comprehensive system of submission upon the unwilling.

Osama bin Laden urged Muslims to kill any American they could find, and then tried to fulfill that vow on Sept. 11. Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah bragged that "the Jews love life, so that is what we shall take away from them" - and then started a war. Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, promises to "wipe out" Israel, and is seeking the nuclear means to do so.

Sharia law and dreams of pan-Islamic global rule fuel their ambitions. Once again, they seek to fool Western liberals through voicing a litany of perpetual hurts. Like the Nazis who whined about the Versailles Treaty that ended World War I, and alleged maltreatment of Germans in the Sudetenland, for years Islamists harped about American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, the U.N. embargo of Iraq and the occupation of Gaza and Lebanon.

But when each complaint was settled, another louder one sprung up; these grievances, it turned out, were pretexts for a larger sense of victimhood, jealousy and lost pride. And appeasement - treating the first World Trade Center bombing as a mere criminal justice matter or virtually ignoring the attack on the USS Cole - only spurred on further aggression.

Islamic fascism is also anti-democratic and characteristically reactionary. It conjures up a past of Islamic influence that existed before the supposed corruption of modernism. Like Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo, who sought to recapture lost mythical Aryan, Roman or samurai purity, so Islamic fascists talk in romantic terms of the ancient caliphate.

Anti-Semitism is a tenet of fascism, then and now. But so is a generic hatred for unbelievers, homosexuals and blacks. The latter are slurred in the Arab media, while homosexuals were rounded up under the Taliban and the Iranian mullacracy.

"Mein Kampf" sells well under its translated title "Jihadi." President Ahmadinejad recently suggested in a sympathetic letter to the German chancellor that the Holocaust was little more than an "alibi" used by the victors of World War II to keep the defeated down.

Even now, it is hard to distinguish the slurs against Jews ("pigs and apes") used in the Middle Eastern media from the venom of Joseph Goebbels' propaganda. Goose-stepping and stiff-armed salutes at Iranian and Hezbollah parades are conscious imitations of past fascist armies.

Some object that the term "Islamic fascism" is too vague to encompass the differing agendas of diverse groups such as the Wahhabis, al-Qaida and Hezbollah. But just as racist German Nazis found common ground with Asian supremacists in Japan, so too the shared hatred of the West trumps the internecine rivalries of present-day Islamists.

The common denominators are extremist views of the Koran (thus the term Islamic), and the goal of seeing authoritarianism imposed at the state level by force (thus the notion of fascism). The pairing of the two words conveys a precise message: the old fascism is back, but now driven by a radical fundamentalist creed of Islam.

Others object that fascism conjures up images of past huge armies, and thus exaggerates only a moderate threat from today's ragtag jihadists. But Iran is seeking a bomb far more powerful than anything Hitler had at his disposal. About 2,400 Nazi V-1 buzz bombs in World War II reached their London targets. Nearly 4,000 Katyushas hit tiny Israel in about a month. And the petroleum of the Middle East is the lever by which the Islamic fascists hope to overturn an oil-hungry world.

In contrast, the fuzzy "war on terror" is the real inexact usage. The United States has never fought against an enemy's tools - such as German submarines or the Soviet KGB - but only against those who employ them. Other groups today use terror - like narco-dealers and Basque separatists - but this war at this time is not against them.

The real problem is not that "Islamic fascism" is inaccurate or mean-spirited, but that this identification earns such vehement disdain in Europe and the United States. That hysteria may tell us as much about the state of a demoralized West as the term itself does about our increasingly emboldened enemies.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War." You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com.
©2006 Tribune Media Services

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It's Fascism -- And It's Islamic
By Victor Davis Hanson


An op-ed from Victor "the traitor" Hanson.

Nice.

Next we'll be hearing op-eds from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

If you can't discuss the ideas and substance presented, then don't bother posting.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

If you can't discuss the ideas and substance presented, then don't bother posting.

The "substance" of an op-ed?

How is that any different than posting Michael Moore's blatherings?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

The only person blathering here is you. You skirted serious discussion a long time ago, and then reverted to the age old "you guys are putting words in my mouth, I'm so offended" crap. Now you're resorting to another message board standard-- attack the source, ignore the substance.

One big difference between him and say Hannity is that Hanson is a military historian, and while you may disagree with his argument (we apparently will never know, cuz you can't actually refute his claims), he is certainly qualified enough to share it.

As for him being a "traitor"-- maybe you shouldn't rely on google searches to bash people. The effort you spent on that could've been spent on reading the piece.

If he's such a fool, and so clueless, well then surely it will be reflected in his writing. Why don't you try responding to that? Otherwise, I repeat what I said above-- don't bother.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

As for him being a "traitor"-- maybe you shouldn't rely on google searches to bash people.

You like to assume a lot, don't you?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Okay, seriously, enough.

It's like you're going for the grand slam of whiney.

[Preechr]

Kevin, you seem particularly new at this.

Is that true?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Are you asking a question?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Are you asking a question?

I guess not. :)

[KevinTheOmnivore]

You like to hit keys on your keyboard, don't you?

[Preechr]

You like to hit keys on your keyboard, don't you?

Are you talking to me?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

You think it's all about you, don't you?

[Preechr]

It' NOT?!

[derrida]

That editorial was pretty stupid.

Why go through all that trouble to defend the use of a politically expedient buzzword that was deployed only to assuage criticism that the "war on terror" actually has a focus on something other than a general methodology, particularly when that word serves only to obfuscate the true nature of political Islam? Why use a word that holds a specific historicity in ancient Rome and later as an influential idea in 20th century Europe when the apparent links between these two movements are the result of wholly different historical situations? (for example, strict interpretation of the Koran and subsequent implementation of such in government can be traced to the emergence of the wahabbist movement which, like the protestant reformation of europe, dispensed with the more mystical aspects of religious practice and emphasized more practical, concrete applications of scripture.)

Talking about Islamic fascism is even less productive than talking about "Nazi fascism"; at least in the latter case the suffix possibly aids in small part an understanding of Nazism as such by placing it within an intellectual and political era influenced in part by fascists.

The whole thing also plays into a tendency among many people to equate any current threat with that of 1940's Europe, a problem which made war inevitable.

[Abcdxxxx]

Derrida, typically you want to sanitize the conversation and reframe it under some loopy terms you can grasp, rather then learn the history itself....here's a really basic brush up through some excerpts of a 3 part series...

Islamism, Fascism and terrorism
by Marc Erikson
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DK05Ak01.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DK08Ak03.html


"Such convergence of views, methods and goals goes back to the 1920s when both Islamism and fascism, ideologically pre-shaped in the late 19th century, emerged as organized political movements with the ultimate aim of seizing state power and imposing their ideological and social policy precepts (in which aims fascism, of course, succeeded in the early '20s and '30s in Italy and Germany, respectively; Islamism only in 1979 in Iran; then in Sudan and Afghanistan). Both movements claim to be the true representatives of some arcane, idealized religious or ethnically pure communities of days long past - in the case of Islamism, the period of the four "righteous caliphs" (632-662), notably the rule of Umar bin al-Khattab (634-44) which allegedly exemplifies "din wa dawla", the unity of religion and state; in the case of the Nazis, the even more obscure Aryan "Volksgemeinschaft", with no historical reference point at all. But both are in reality - as historian Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, puts it - 20th century outgrowths, radical movements, utopian and totalitarian in their outlook. The Iranian scholars Ladan and Roya Boroumand have made the same point.

The Nazi ("national socialist") movement was formed in reaction to the World War I destruction of the "Second Reich", the "unequal and treasonous" Versailles Treaty and the mass social dislocation that followed, its racialist, corporatist ideology laid out in Hitler's Mein Kampf (My Struggle). The Muslim Brotherhood (Al Ikhwan Al Muslimun), parent organization of numerous Islamist terrorist outfits, was formed in 1928 in reaction to the 1924 abolition of the caliphate by Turkish reformer Kemal Ataturk, drawing the consequences of the World War I demise of the Ottoman Empire. Ikhwan founder Hassan al-Banna, an Egyptian school teacher, wrote at the time that it was endless contemplation of "the sickness that has reduced the ummah (Muslim community) to its present state" which prompted him and five like-minded followers - all of them in their early twenties - to set up the organization to rectify it. "....."Al-Banna's brotherhood, initially limiting itself to spiritual and moral reform, grew at astonishing speed in the 1930s and '40s after embracing wider political goals and by the end of World War II had around 500,000 members in Egypt alone and branches throughout the Middle East. Event background, ideology, and method of organizing all account for its improbable success. As the war drew to a close, the time was ripe for an end to British and French colonial rule and the Ikhwan was ready with the persuasive, religiously-buttressed answer: Free the Islamic homeland from foreign, infidel (kafir) control; establish a unified Islamic state. And al-Banna had built a formidable organization to accomplish just that: it featured sophisticated governance structures, sections in charge of different segments of society (peasants, workers, professionals), units entrusted with key functions (propaganda, press relations, translation, liaison with the Islamic world), and specialized committees for finances and legal affairs - all built on existing social networks, in particular those around mosques and Islamic welfare associations. Weaving of traditional ties into a distinctly modern political structure was at the root of al-Banna's success..

But the "Supreme Guide" of the brethren knew that faith, good works and numbers alone do not a political victory make. Thus, modeled on Mussolini's blackshirts (al-Banna much admired "Il Duce" and soul brother "Fuehrer" Adolf Hitler), he set up a paramilitary wing (slogan: "action, obedience, silence", quite superior to the blackshirts' "believe, obey, fight") and a "secret apparatus" (al-jihaz al-sirri) and intelligence arm of al-Ikhwan to handle the dirtier side - terrorist attacks, assassinations, and so on - of the struggle for power."




"One of those executed by hanging was chief ideologue Sayyid Qutb. Al-Zawahiri is Qutb's intellectual heir; he has further developed his message, and is putting it into practise.

But without Qutb, present-day Islamism as a noxious amalgam of fascist totalitarianism and extremes of Islamic fundamentalism would not exist. His principal "accomplishment" was to articulate the social and political practices of the Muslim Brotherhood from the 1930s through the 1950s - including collaboration with fascist regimes and organizations, involvement in anti-colonial, anti-Western and anti-Israeli actions, and the struggle for state power in Egypt - in demagogically persuasive fashion, buttressed by tendentious references to Islamic law and scriptures to deceive the faithful. Qutb, a one-time literary critic, was not a religious fundamentalist, but a Goebbels-style propagandist for a new totalitarianism to stand side-by-side with fascism and communism."

"Substitute religious for racial purity, the idealized ummah of the rule of the four righteous caliphs of the mid-7th century for the mythical Aryan "Volksgemeinschaft", and most ideological and organizational precepts of Nazism laid out by chief theoretician Alfred Rosenberg in his work The Myth of the 20th Century and by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf, and later put into practice, are in all essential respects identical to the precepts of the Muslim Brotherhood after its initial phase as a group promoting spiritual and moral reform. This ranges from radical rejection of "decadent" Western political and economic liberalism (instead embracing the "leadership principle" and corporatist organization of the economy) to endorsement of the use of terror and assassinations to seize and hold state power, and all the way to concoction of fantastical anti-Semitic conspiracy theories linking international plutocratic finance to Freemasonry, Zionism and all-encompassing Jewish world control.

Not surprisingly then, as Italian and German fascism sought greater stakes in the Middle East in the 1930s and '40s to counter British and French controlling power, close collaboration between fascist agents and Islamist leaders ensued. During the 1936-39 Arab Revolt, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, head of German military intelligence, sent agents and money to support the Palestine uprising against the British, as did Muslim Brotherhood founder and "supreme guide" Hassan al-Banna. A key individual in the fascist-Islamist nexus and go-between for the Nazis and al-Banna became the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini - incidentally the later mentor (from 1946 onward) of a young firebrand by the name of Yasser Arafat

Having fled from Palestine to Iraq, el-Husseini assisted there in the short-lived April 1941 Nazi-inspired and financed anti-British coup. By June 1941, British forces had reasserted control in Baghdad and the mufti was on the run again, this time via Tehran and Rome to Berlin, to a hero's welcome. He remained in Germany as an honored guest and valuable intelligence and propaganda asset through most of the war, met with Hitler on several occasions, and personally recruited leading members of the Bosnian-Muslim "Hanjar" (saber) division of the Waffen SS.

Another valued World War II Nazi collaborator was Youssef Nada, current board chairman of al-Taqwa (Nada Management), the Lugano, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and Bahamas-based financial services outfit accused by the US Treasury Department of money laundering for and financing of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda. As a young man, he had joined the armed branch of the "secret apparatus" (al-jihaz al-sirri) of the Muslim Brotherhood and then was recruited by German military intelligence. When Grand Mufti el-Husseini had to flee Germany in 1945 as the Nazi defeat loomed, Nada reportedly was instrumental in arranging the escape via Switzerland back to Egypt and eventually Palestine, where el-Husseini resurfaced in 1946.

[Abcdxxxx]

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27b/082.html
"Islamism, or fascism with an Islamic face, was born with and of the Muslim Brotherhood. It proved (and improved) its fascist core convictions and practices through collaboration with the Nazis in the run-up to and during World War II. It proved it during the same period through its collaboration with the overtly fascist Young Egypt (Misr al-Fatah) movement, founded in October 1933 by lawyer Ahmed Hussein and modeled directly on the Hitler party, complete with paramilitary Green Shirts aping the Nazi Brown Shirts, Nazi salute and literal translations of Nazi slogans. Among its members, Young Egypt counted two promising youngsters and later presidents, Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar El-Sadat.".....
"Whether al-Banna, who had already been in contact with German agents since the 1936-39 Palestine uprising against the British, or someone else introduced Sadat and his free officer comrades to German military intelligence is not known. But in the summer of 1942, when Rommel's Afrikakorps stood just over 100 kilometers from Alexandria and were poised to march into Cairo, Sadat, Nasser and their buddies were in close touch with the German attacking force and—with Brotherhood help—preparing an anti-British uprising in Egypt's capital. A treaty with Germany including provisions for German recognition of an independent, but pro-Axis Egypt had been drafted by Sadat, guaranteeing that no British soldier would leave Cairo alive. When Rommel's push east failed at El Alamein in the fall of 1942, Sadat and several of his co-conspirators were arrested by the British and sat out much of the remainder of the war in jail.

Islamist-fascist collaboration did not cease with war's end. King Farouk brought large numbers of German military and intelligence personnel as well as ranking (ex-) Nazis into Egypt as advisors. It was a bad move. Several of the Germans, recognizing Farouk's political weakness, soon began conspiring with Nasser and his free officers (who, in turn, were working closely with the Brotherhood) to overthrow the king. On July 23, 1952, the deed was done and Newsweek marveled that, The most intriguing aspect [of] the revolt ... was the role played in the coup by the large group of German advisors serving with the Egyptian army ... The young officers who did the actual planning consulted the German advisors as to 'tactics' ... This accounted for the smoothness of the operation.

And yet another player fond of playing all sides against the middle had entered the game prior to Farouk's ouster: In 1951, the CIA's Kermit Roosevelt (grandson of president Teddy, who in 1953 would organize the overthrow of elected Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh and install Reza Pahlavi as Shah) opened secret negotiations with Nasser. Agreement was soon reached that the US, post-coup, would assist in building up Egypt's intelligence and security forces—in the obvious manner, by reinforcing Nasser's existing Germans with additional, more capable, ones. For that, CIA head Allen Dulles turned to Reinhard Gehlen, one-time head of eastern front German military intelligence and by the early 1950s in charge of developing a new German foreign intelligence service. Gehlen hired the best man he knew for the job—former SS colonel Otto Skorzeny, who at the end of the war had organized the infamous ODESSA network to facilitate the escape of high-ranking Nazis to Latin America (mainly Peron's Argentina) and Egypt. With Skorzeny now on the job of assisting Nasser, Egypt became a safe haven for Nazi war criminals galore. The CIA officer in charge of the Egypt assistance program was Miles Copeland, soon a Nasser intimate.".......

"Sayyid Qutb was born in 1906 in a small village in Upper Egypt, was educated at a secular college, and subsequently worked as an inspector of schools for the ministry of education. In the 1930s and 1940s, nothing pointed to his later role. He wrote literary criticism, hung out in coffee houses, and published a novel which flopped. His conversion to radical Islam came during two-and-a-half years of graduate studies in education in the United States (1948-51). He came to hate everything American, described churches as entertainment centers and sexual playgrounds, was shocked by the freedom allowed to women, and immediately upon his return to Egypt joined the Muslim Brotherhood and assumed the position of editor-in-chief of the organization's newspaper.

While in jail, Qutb wrote a 30-volume (!) commentary on the Koran; but his most influential book, published in 1965 after his 1964 release from prison for health reasons, was Ma'alim fi'l-tariq (Signposts on the Road, also translated as Milestones). In it, he revised Hassan al-Banna's concept of establishing an Islamic state in Egypt after the nation was thoroughly Islamized, advocating instead—fascist or Bolshevik-style—that a revolutionary vanguard should first seize state power and then impose Islamization from above. Trouble is, this recipe went against the unambiguous Muslim prohibition against overthrowing a Muslim ruler."

And then part 4 he links it all to Al Qaeda...
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27b/083.html

[mburbank]

"Derrida, typically you want to sanitize the conversation and reframe it under some loopy terms you can grasp, rather then learn the history itself"

Know what, Acbsdhsj?

No matter what the discussion is about, no matter what arguments you bring, this sentence shows you are just a total solopsistic dick, and an angry intellectual bully.

[Preechr]

Since we're branding our enemy, I think we should just call them Evil Sand Nazis from Planet X.

[mburbank]

I don't know, that's not ad, but I think they should have something more SPOOKY, like COBRA or S.P.E.C.T.R.E.

[Preechr]

Well, that would infer an organizational structure. I'm all for fighting COBRA, but unfortunately they won't hold meetings, elect a leader and wear the uniforms we sent them. Uncooperative little buggers.

Ok, more spooky... Evil Nazi Sand Zombies from HELL. A little wordy, but better than Islamofascist. I think I really am getting behind this branding effort. For one thing, hearing the clumsy concoctions hastily slapped together through random happenstance gets a little old sometimes. The Plotters? The Shoe Bomber? Come on. Islamofascist sounds like it fell out of the same bin that produced Metrosexual. I want to call them something so bad it would still sound nasty if Daffy Duck were saying it.

[Abcdxxxx]

Yup, it's groundhogs day around here. Same tired old shit. Maybe if you got educated yourself on the topic I'd be inspired to put a little more effort into a clever response.

[mburbank]

Speaking of the ame tired old shit, Hi, Abcdxxx.

Seriously, you are a gigantic dick. You're like Phd's I know who flip out if you don't call them Doctor.

It isn't 'effort' you don't want to put in, you do that all the time. "A++" for effort for you. It's that you are totally binary.

Setting A: I know more about the middle east then you and unless you read all the books I have (and if you did you'd have to agree with me totally, because this isn't about interpretation it's about truth, which I own) I'm right DE FACTO, so START READING MY SYllABUS.

Setting B: I don't have to substantiate my dickness. Nobody cares. I sure don't care. You know what I mean. It's totally clear. I don't care. Did I mention I don't care, last post?


Resolved: You are an insufferable dick. Take the pro or the con.

[Abcdxxxx]

Okay. Don't debate the topic. If you could refute any of this, you obviously would.

[mburbank]

If I start a whole knew thread about what a Dick you are, will that make you happy?

[Abcdxxxx]

Wouldn't it just be easier to stick to the thread you made right here, and oh I don't know, stay on topic?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Yup, it's groundhogs day around here. Same tired old shit. Maybe if you got educated yourself on the topic I'd be inspired to put a little more effort into a clever response.

Well, either that or you're just a dittohead that can't respond to anyone who disagrees with you in a non-hostile way.

One or the other.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Okay. Don't debate the topic. If you could refute any of this, you obviously would.

Heh. Look who's talking. Anytime anyone disagrees with you, you begin insulting them, to avoid having to admit you don't have an answer.

[Abcdxxxx]

Insult me all you want but there's been 11 posts since I posted the excerpts from that essay, and not one has addressed the content.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Heh. Look who's talking. Anytime anyone disagrees with you, you begin insulting them, to avoid having to admit you don't have an answer.

You relinquished all of your rights to pass judgement in this thread a long time ago, after you googled the author of an editorial in order to complain about him. At least derrida picked apart the content, which you are obvioulsy ill equipped to do.

[Abcdxxxx]

Another lengthy, well researched article ...

A mosque for ex-Nazis became center of radical Islam
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
By Ian Johnson, The Wall Street Journal
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05193/536684.stm
The mosque's history, however, tells a more-tumultuous story. Buried in government and private archives are hundreds of documents that trace the battle to control the Islamic Center of Munich. Never before made public, the material shows how radical Islam established one of its first and most important beachheads in the West when a group of ex-Nazi soldiers decided to build a mosque.

The soldiers' presence in Munich was part of a nearly forgotten subplot to World War II: the decision by tens of thousands of Muslims in the Soviet Red Army to switch sides and fight for Hitler. After the war, thousands sought refuge in West Germany, building one of the largest Muslim communities in 1950s Europe. When the Cold War heated up, they were a coveted prize for their language skills and contacts back in the Soviet Union. For more than a decade, U.S., West German, Soviet and British intelligence agencies vied for control of them in the new battle of democracy versus communism.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Heh. Look who's talking. Anytime anyone disagrees with you, you begin insulting them, to avoid having to admit you don't have an answer.

You relinquished all of your rights to pass judgement in this thread a long time ago, after you googled the author of an editorial in order to complain about him. At least derrida picked apart the content, which you are obvioulsy ill equipped to do.

I didn't have to google Victor Hanson.

Why do you lie like that?

[mburbank]

Because he Kevin and Acdxxxx, although very different people, share a copywrite on TRUTH.

And you know, it's not what you read, it's that you have to read what they read when they tell you to. And then, should you disagree, you'll need to read a lot of other stuff they tell you to.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Max, you're embarrassing yourself.

Did you see me attack derrida? I think he/she made some good points, which I intend to respond to when I get a chance.

Reverend what'shisname knows nothing about the author, so he went and found what he could in order to dismiss the subject at hand.

I know now that Reverend simply can't put a competent counter-argument together, which is why he's forced to grasp at straws. You on the other hand, having known you, are very capable of actually debating an issue without pouting, complaining, and attacking people personally.

I have responded directly to your concerns with the Fascism/Nazi comparison, and you ignored it. You became more interested in shadowing every word posted by abc, rather than confronting our ideas and proving us to be wrong. So since my words words were appaently just being ignored, I posted an Op/Ed that articulated my point a little bit better. Abc subsequently posted others that make good arguments.

I don't care who's smarter, who has read more books, or who's really Jewish. I care about the topic, and that's what I'd like to discuss.

[mburbank]

"Because he Kevin and Acdxxxx, although very different people, share a copywrite on TRUTH. "
-Me, commenting on posting stylistics.

"Max, you're embarrassing yourself."
-Kevin, Mistaking his personal reaction (internal) for an action on my part (external)

"I know now that Reverend simply can't put a competent counter-argument together, which is why he's forced to grasp at straws."
-Kevin, defining someone out of the debate, as in 'Reverend so-and-so simply can't speak English.

These to me, seem like copywrites on truth.

"You on the other hand, having known you, are very capable of actually debating an issue."
-Kevin, setting up a back handed compliment, a form a certainly appreciatte, but a structure that is certainly a complaint, and if not pouty is passive agressive. I am indeed capable of debate, as you noted. I have lately become disinclined because I believe your tone has come to lack even the possability of error. Abcdxxxxx's tone has been ever thus (THUS, I said.) unto (UNTO) the point of clownishness. It was wrong of me to lump the two of you together, as I find him Hilarrious while you arte making me sad.

Respectfully, I realize this is off topic, but were I to make a seperate thread for it, you might duck into a phone booth or supply closet and re-emerge, your powers of moderation a-rippling.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

And still you refuse to discuss the issue.

[mburbank]

Fine, snootypants.

I moved it. You can respond to it or lock it or make it into a party hat.

"Max, I'd like for you to elaborate on this comment. Do you think he's incorrect b/c Muhammed simply doesn't hold much stature in the "ME"? Did Muhammed preach or practice peaceful Islam?

Which is it?"

Kevin, quite frankly I missed that post in the absolute blizzard of other crap in this thread. To respond, BECAUSE I RESPECT YOU,

I said Muslims had no single leader, no voice they all answered, even remotely comparable to Hitler. Abcdxx responded "What about Muhammed" and I said that was one of te stupidest things he'd ever said.

I didn't take it any further because I thout it was self evident. However unlike him, I am perfectly willing to accept your question as proof my meaning was NOT self evident, and so BECAUSE I REPECT YOU I will respond.

Quite frankly, I don't know anywhere near enough about the Koran to begin to discuss wether or not it preaches 'peaceful Islam' and make any sort of comparison to Nazism in particular or fascism in general, or even violence as a political, social or religous tool.

Here's what I do know. The Koran is and has been historically open to a wide number of interpretations, as have the speciffic words of their Prophet. The same can hardly be said for Hitler during his lifetime. His officers and soldiers were not allowed to 'interpret' his orders, there weren't multiple schools of thought on what he meant. I see little to no comparison between a totalitarian dictator during his lifetime and a religous leader dead for hundreds of years. If you want a comparison, you could look to living leaders capable of enforcing their will as they themselves interpret it. Al sadr, Hussein, whomever, and that was exactly my initial point. We are fighting multiple factions even within the three main ethnic divisions, complicated by countries, tribes, economies, histories, etc, etc, etc.

Of course Muhamed holds stature, but he does not personally enforce and interpret his will. I find comparison between a monolithic nation ruled by a speciffic dictator and a huge, fractured region influenced however strongly (and of course it's very strongly) by the written words ascribed to a man long dead. I find a comparison between Hitlers leadership of the Nazis and Mohameds influence on Muslis, even if you only want to talk about radicalized Muslims, well, stupid. Not to put to fine a point on it.

I hope I have now adressed your query in such a way that you personally feel I have not embarassed myself further, but only because I RESPECT YOU and not because I feel your ownership of the truth is such that you are empowered to make such determinations.

[Abcdxxxx]

Nobody compared Muhammed to Hitler. It's the Islamic fascist belief of Muhammed that makes him a unifying figurehead for their movement. Wether their viewpoint is accurate is an entirely different topic entirely.

[mburbank]

" They don't have a leader that commands loyalty on even a remote par with Hitler."
-Me, making a point about why the Nazi analogy doesn't work.

"Unlike the Nazis, the Islamic fascists "answer" to the call of many leaders... dead ones...Muhammed ring a bell?"
-You making a point about... well, I'm not really sure.

I don't believe a dead person can be a leader. The instructions of the dead are alway open to interpretation, there is no method by which you can say which living persons interpretation is more valid and far from unifying, the words of dead lead almost inexorably to factionilization and power struggles. The "Islamic Facists" are not a group, do not recognize themselves as a group, cannot even put aside their fraticidal killing to focus fully on any common goals they may have. Ergo, the whole WWII anaolgy is useless as a tool for understanding, which is unsurprsing since it's intent is solely to influence the upcoming American elections.

I'm hardly in a position to criticize you for going off topic, but that analogy is what this thread is about.

[Abcdxxxx]

"the whole WWII anaolgy is useless as a tool for understanding, which is unsurprsing since it's intent is solely to influence the upcoming American elections."

Call me crazy, but I don't think the two articles I posted, or the many like it published over the past 5 years, have a thing to do with the upcoming elections.

Islamic Fascists do in fact recognize themselves as a group - they consider themselves good Muslims and soldiers for allah. Inter-factions and disputes are not what defines their ideology in common. For fundamentalists of any religion, the word of a prophet is more then enough to go on, wether from scriptures or just interpretation from a spiritual leaders. People routinely make life decisions based on religious doctrines, and in this case they have politicized their beliefs as duties commanded of them by Muhhammed. Everything they do is in reference to their concept (again, wether or not it's theologically or historicallyaccurate) of fullfilling his expectations of them. In that regard, this version of fascism is more dangerous then one led by a living breathing flawed figurehead. Their leadership rule by totalitarianism, and their people live under fascisism dictated by what is supposed to be Islamic law. Shar'ia laws in Saudi Arabi are islamic Fascism.

[mburbank]

You mean our good friends and allies in the war in terror the Saudis, or some other Saudis? 'Cause it doesn't sound to me as if you're on board with the WOT we have. And you have to go to war with the war you have.

For a unified group with unfied goals, they sure are killing each other a lot in Iraq. I'm not sure I recall the Nazis killing each other by the bucket load.

I'm not saying they aren't dangerous. I'm saying they are different. Different enough that all this talk of appeasement and Hiter is a pretty useless model.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

I'd agree to that, but I also think the Vietnam analogy is lame though. Just cause it's a very long war we may not win with little back up doesn't make it identical. The driving forces on all 3 sides are VERY different and so is the methods.

I'd compare it more to wars between system lords on Stargate SG-1.

[Abcdxxxx]

When did fascism become defined by how it effects outsiders? Certainly the populations living under fascists rule suffer the most.

You're still welcome to address the wealth of information from the article posted. All the organizations and governments we're speaking of were either linked, or inspired by the Nazis themselves. Not some hyperbole analogy but the very Nazis themselves. Really your argument is cosmetic. It hasn't risen above "but they had jungle in vietnam and sand in iraq".

[ziggytrix]

“Fascism ought to more properly be called corporatism since it is the merger of state and corporate power.” Benito Mussolini

[Preechr]

THANK YOU.

[Abcdxxxx]

He also said "Fascism is a religious concept".

It's just terminology though. there can be Fascist Corporatism.

[Preechr]

We are at war with those that would use violence to suppress others, "we" being the most effectively violent thing in the history of the planet. A "War on Islamofacists" is revisionist and retarded. Was Saddam Hussein an "Islamofascist," or was he a decidedly un-Islamic-by-any-measure despot that was attacked within the criteria of THIS war? How many wars are we fighting?

Suddenly calling it a "War on Islamofacists" is to allow Max, once he's had the time to sort it all out, to say that we started a "War on Islamofacists" in Afghanistan, then switched gears to fight a "War against Saddam's Regime in Iraq," which allowed "Islamofascists" into Iraq, where we are now fighting another "War on Islamofacists." He would then facetiously ask which country are we going to behead next in order to broaden the "War on Islamofacists." THAT is why calling it a "War on Islamofacists" is retarded.

TERROR is the last available tool for someone to use violently against someone else. "War" is no longer conflicts between nations or alliances of nations. We tried "Cold War," a new concept in warfare, but that's out now, too. We are now in the era of Superpower vs. the regime. We did not declare war against Iraq... just it's leadership. We did not declare war against Afghanistan, just the bad guys holed up there. Saddam and the Taliban and the "Islamofascists" and C.O.B.R.A all use violence in the form of terror to suppress what we feel should be FREE people, so we kill them... "we" being the most effectively violent thing in the history of the planet.

I have asked this before to no avail: When terror no longer produces results for bad guys, what method is left? The pressure is on for all of these violent groups to disarm and form political movements that seek to do whatever they wish within the confines of the political arena DEMOCRATICALLY, just as God intended it. Unfortunately, God never enforced that, preferring instead to God-give us all inalienable rights and then leave it up to us to sort it all out, so now it's up to the Neo-Cons to make sure EVERYBODY gets to enjoy the freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[mburbank]

Boy oh boy, Preech, I got to tell you, I haven't even finsihed your post, and I just wanted you to know that if I had a sig, it would contain the quote " A "War on Islamofacists" is revisionist and retarded." I could not agree more.

Your summation of what I would say if I ever got it all sorted was better than anything I have said so far, which is impressive concidering I think that we disagree on wether we should be doing any of what we are doing.

So, I'll return the compliment candidly and admit I don't know what we should be doing. I just have really passionate feelings about things we should not do, and I hate retarded revisionism so, so SO much, and I get very angry that people confuse their legitimate (though contrary to my) goals for our country with what this administration is doing for what I see as a host of ham fisted and differing reasons in Iraq. I think it's a hideous stew of Daddy Issues, Free market fundamentalism, religous fundamentalism, arrogance, fear, slavish party loyalty, superiority and messianic delusions and that where it touches on goals and ideals expressed here on I-mock ( even by posters I never agree with) it is almost totally coincidental.

But the fact that I don't know what we should be doing is not an argument for being satisfied with it. If I didn't know how to drive, I still wouldn't get in a car with a drunk, legally blind dwarf with Narcolepsy and a driver's liscence.

[Preechr]

You're welcome. You would have said it. I just had to steal your thunder. I support the war, for reasons that may well be alien to most our government, and I can still see this name-change is stupid. I understand the value of drawing a line between normal, everyday Muslims and the super-Muslim mutants with which we are fighting. Sure, fascism is bad... but Al Quaeda is no more a fascist organization than it is a gaggle of moon people. Saying the word makes me want to take a computer plane to Pepsi-Cola, Florida just to get away from all this stupidity for a while. The administration, with one word, has made the whole world dumber.

The good news, however, is that by co-opting the phrase used by ALL of the conservative talk-show hosts, the punditry that most voters partake of is somewhat calmer and more supportive of "Staying the Course," fat and happy as they are now on their table scraps. All Dubya has to do at this point is make a show of slamming the border doors and send some green busses to some major cities, "Cracking Down" on illegal aliens... right before the election... and the Democrats will lose seats this Fall.

I would have DRASTICALLY preferred the administration just come clean on what the War on Terror really is. The book I recommended you, "the Pentagon's New Map," by Thomas PM Barnett... available on Amazon and stores near you... clearly explains why we are doing what we are doing and is BASED on a Pentagon Powerpoint presentation that dots all the i's and crosses all the t's... One that existed BEFORE 9/11 and has been seen by everybody in charge of this war. It's not perfect and it's not complete, but it does a freakin GREAT job of painting a pretty picture over a messy and confusing war.

War Presidents EXPLAIN wars to the people. "Stay the Course" has run off the tracks. What pisses me off the most is that there is a perfect message out there that could easily replace the nothing we have and nobody's getting it out there. That says all that needs to be said about how our government views the majority of American voters. Maybe, deep inside the beltway, people discuss this war candidly and honestly so it's easy for them to believe that we, too, can sort rhetoric from fact. Unfortunately, that is just not the case. This war deserves broad-based support, and it would get it but for the closed mouths in the White House. I have seen the administration use this political tactic before, and it works, but this is not just the latest wild-eyed Democrat attack plan. This is a very real war where very real Americans are risking their lives and often losing that bet. There is nothing to be gained by politicizing it, and both sides are doing that moreso than they are getting the world honestly behind it, and THAT is what will end it.

[mburbank]

I'm relieved (seriously) to hear you say that there is some sort of coherent plan, and will probably get the book you mentioned.

Here's my question though, how much does the Pentagon get to steer? I'm not of the impression that they have the same goals as Rummy or Chenney, who seem to me to win a lot of the arguments between them and have also set up a sort of private pentagon within the pentagon.

At some point, though, barring a coup, they wil be gone, and it is a relief to think that there are people who aren't full bore bonkers at least working on the problem.

[Preechr]

The Bush administration, just like Clinton and all the others, is primarily a political entity with political goals. They only know what actual smart people tell them, and so any decisions they make are made based in information accumulated by others. We are not at war in Iraq because of what George W Bush knows about Iraqis or terrorists. He picks from preformed plans arrayed for him with the goal of politics being first and foremost. He doesn't even have beliefs of his own.

Imagine military plans A-Z laid out on a table, scenarios that would have us attacking everybody from Australia to Zimbabwe. Plans G, H, and V only work as a strategy if they adhere to a coherent belief structure. All this is pre-packaged, and the President simply picks what he can sell politically. Clinton took the easiest route possible. At least Bush had the guts to pick a strategy even though he wasn't up to the task of selling it.

[Blasted Child]

So now you're giving Bush credits because 1) he followed a presented plan without thinking for himself and 2) the plan was bad but he still kept to it?
Can you pin-point exactly what there is to admire?

[mburbank]

I disagree entirely, and this is one of the ways in which I think this administration is very different from previous ones.

I think W is malleable putty, a figurehead at best. I think actual decision making is made by Chenney, Rumsfeld and is filtered by Rove for political impact. If that triumvirate actually picked a plan from the A-Z lsit on the table, I would feel safer. I think they are meglomaniacal and believe they are far wiser than anyone in the Pentagon, which is why they installed their own flacks in critical positions and created entire new offices to shape intelligence to fit policy.

I think they picked an alphabetized plan and immeditely began to retool it as if they had the slightest idea what they were doing. Career officers played ball and got promoted or didn't and got shitcanned.

How else could you possibly explain a total failure to plan for anything but a best case scenario? How else could you explain Bremmer disbanding the entire Iraqi army? The American army has a proud tradition of doing what it's civillian leaders order, and I think it's a very valuable , perhaps even a critical structure. But one relies on a secretary of state who does not radically overestimate himself, and a President who will fire the secretary if he does. I think, in this respect, we are seriously fucked.

[Preechr]

I don't admire him. I said ALL Presidents simply pick from presentations. I said he had the guts to pick an actual strategy, where Clinton only just reacted mildly when provoked with no overall plan. Politically, Bush has shown more balls than Clinton did. Additionally, it's one thing to have a strategy, and it's another thing altogether to implement it well. The main thing TeamBush has done badly is the way they've handled the PR. They're trying to work it the same way they did Plamegate and all the other political battles with which the Dems have challenged them. Maybe that's the only way to handle people, but I would have preferred openly explaining the goals (not the means for attaining them) instead of just telling us it would be a long process and we'd need to just stay the course for as long as it takes.

[Preechr]

A good example: Rummy is widely credited for "streamlining" the military, which gives the impression that he woke up one morning with a hangover and a brave new idea, immediately setting out to hack and slash the existing force structure into some ingenious, innovative "army of one." This is hardly the case. He worked a lot of the political angles that allowed major changes to made, but all he represented was the political push behind the culmination of millions of man-hours over decades... tons of other people much more qualified than Rummy have dedicated much of their careers to re-shape the Post-Cold-War military.

As I said before, the world is no longer threatened by the huge scale warfare that ended with the gore and death of WWII. Since the end of the Cold War, we have no more use of the type of soldiers and gear required to fight on that level. Admirals and Generals have commissioned thousands of experts to forcast the threats of the future and what we'll need to meet them. Billions of dollars have been spent in this effort, and the effort is ongoing.

It took the 9/11 attacks to refocus those Admirals and Generals on the real threats of this century. They were still hoping for (and thus paying for the studies that confirmed) a real threat from a "near-peer," like China. You can still hear idiots talking about a red threat, regardless of the fact that the only thing China might possibly mobilize for is our failure to stabilize the oil supply they will be needing in abundance in about ten years. I have said it before: if this is a war for oil on any level, it's not a war for oil for us.

Rummy may have been helpful... instrumental even... in lining up the politics behind the pre-packaged Army of One, a metamorphesis still far from completed btw, but it was hardly his idea. It's still fun to watch disenfranchised military leaders, unfortunately streamlined in some way, bitching about Rummy's single-handed prosecution of the war... as if they don't know better.

This is the way of things. Especially these days, administrations mean next to nothing. The only choices to be made are doing what the experts recommend or doing nothing.

[Preechr]

You guys really need to start thinking like politicians here. The pattern is very easy to see. They talk a lot of shit about an issue they think they can make popular, then they feed into the political debate machine. There's a lot of spinning and porking, then, eventually, some sort of action is taken. You are used to seeing this action in the form of a bill being passed, but in this case, war was declared... a really big and ambitious one, in fact.

Think about those bills that get passed, though. In every case, what makes it through the machine is at best a shadow, if not a mockery, of the ideological bruhaha that started the process. Welfare Reform produces nearly the same Welfare System we had. Tax Reform bills regularly screw the tax code up even more. Immigration Reform... Weapons Initiatives... Freakin FCC laws... Can you name something Washington DC has ever done that worked out as planned? They even screwed up the damn Amber Alert!

The implementation of everything we've ever wanted the federal government to do has always been fucked from the get go. Why should War on Terror be any different? Bad planning should have been expected. Have you ever read any histories of any wars past? If so, I encourage you to compare the mistakes made with the benefits of seeing those efforts through. There's more at stake here than the glory of Dubya's legacy.

[mburbank]

Are you speaking of potential benefits? Because while I understand there's little else to speak of, I think we should try to keep ourselves realistic. The WOT could rsult in the complete annialation of all life on earth, or an earthly paradise. Neither seems likely.

My prediction isn't WWIII, although I think we lean more in that direction than a balanced world order, is a prolonged cluster fuck draining our coffers and strething the army to it's breaking point until the next presiential election. Then we will either try to extricate ourselves and refocus or go on an actual war footing. I wouldn't care to predict how either course would run, it depends on how much pojntless damage is done before then as we 'stay the course'.

I think my biggest disagreement with you is one of degree. Yes, wars are like bills and laws. But there's different degrees of bad. Like if I have an opperable cancer, that's bad, but it's nowhere near as bad as if a meteor strikes the town I live in, killing me and everyone within a hundred mile radius. This war has involved almost unmeasurable amounts of hubris and boobery, as opposed to the usual very large but quantifiable amounts of Boobery. It's not quite Little Bighorn or the Charge of the Light Brigade yet, but it's getting into the Soviets in Afghanistan territory in it's budget busting and it has a lot more capacity for widening.

[Preechr]

I'm a bit more optimistic on the perceived benefits the world will enjoy for us having engaged in this fight. While I understand that it's silly to try and hinge a discussion on what might have happened if we hadn't acted as we did, I think it's a safe assumption that 9/11 represented such a large scale upping of the ante in the already raging terrorist side of the war, which leads me to believe they had a little more than 5 years of nothing else in store for us. Can we agree that our response to 9/11, whether or not you like it, has disrupted their plans? We constantly debate among ourselves as wheter we are, in fact, safer now thanks to the WOT... Is there andy debate as the safety of our enemies?

Additionally, I didn't mean to make you think I was saying that war is no more important than a garden variety piece of legislation. What I meant was that politicians use the same processes to run a war as they do everything else. Government, as I have said many times before, is like a chipper-shredder. No matter how you intend to use it, it does everything the same way. How many times have you seen a piece of legislation come out of that machine as a "compromise," which basically means it's about half of what it was supposed to be? They will always say that's all they could get through, but that they'll be refining it and adding to it later on.

As sick as it sounds when we're talking about people fighting and dying, this is the same political bullshit method being used for the war. Personally, I feel it is better to be half-assing it than doing nothing as long as half-assing it is all we are capable of. Sure, it'd be great to be doing the right thing AND doing it perfectly, but that's a pipe dream. That being said, I honestly believe we aren't doing THAT bad of a job. Our methods are showing results, and we are not using the brutal warfare tactics of all our other wars... stuff like Napalm, Carpet Bombing, Seiges like D-Day... Say what you want about Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and I'm sure you want to bring up Phosphorus Bombs, but millions of people aren't dying needlessly this time around, unlike wars past. War is Hell, but the War on Terror has a cherry on top with sprinkles when compared to WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, or even your example of the Soviet clusterfuck in Afghanistan.

We are fighting much better and much more effectively and much more humanely than we ever have, but that's not the only thing that's changed with this war. More "innocent civilians" died in WWII than did actual soldiers. We had the stomache for that back then. We treat every dead body in this war, unless they are American soldiers of course, as a tragedy, and we blame it on Bush. That's a ridiculous notion that has no place in a war because it's fighting the fight for the enemy. Yes, I know that sounds like something Cheney would say, but I'm about sick of the media and the left being such pussies about this.

[derrida]

"One, I believe there’s an Almighty, and secondly I believe one of the great gifts of the Almighty is the desire in everybody’s soul, regardless of what you look like or where you live to be free. I believe liberty is universal."

-George W. Bush

"Human cultures can be vastly different, yet the human heart desires the same good things, everywhere on earth…For these fundamental reasons, freedom and democracy will always and everywhere have greater appeal than the slogans of hatred and the tactics of terror."

-George W. Bush

This is basically how I see your position on Iraq. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Preechr]

No correction needed. Pretty liberal, ain't it? You could have picked quotes from any number of other people, all saying basically the same thing, but I don't mind agreeing with Dubya on this, even if I disagree with him on so many other things. Let's say that I agree with his speechwriter's sentiments on the matter.

I also agree, in spirit, with his liberal position on immigration and his support of free-market alternatives to "universal healthcare." The positions his administration have adopted, in a few cases, are much more sensible than either of the parties would support. That's the "Neo-con" influence that will live inside government after Bush is gone, just as it lived within the Clinton administration, that of the other Bush, and Reagan's presidency.

"Neo-con" is generally seen as purjorative term, but the movement is nothing more than an ideology set to action based in classical Liberalism. Those that don't like Jews call them Zionist conspirators. "Progressives" don't like them because their views and actions pierce the facade of the modern Democrat Party's claim to a liberal foundation, revealing them as the socialists they really are. "Conservatives" don't like them because they operate mostly from within the Republican Party, regardless of the insult to conservative principles doing so represents. Everybody seems to have a reason for not liking them, it seems.

I like them, so far, because I believe in the things they seem to be causing. I believe they are gaming the political system in order to instigate very positive changes in the status quo. They have infiltrated the permanent government that lives behind the elected, political shell. Whether or not Bush really believes the words you quoted, Neo-cons are the people that provided them for him. I don't judge them by what others say about them, because they seem to threaten everyone with something to gain from the way things are now. Those kind of people tend to lie. I judge them by what I see them doing, and I like it.