Jim

I agree that we need another word or term. I had been using "Wahabist Death Cult"' date=' but this term would only cover the sunni fighters and would have many of the drawbacks of a term like "Islamofascist".

 

How about "Islamic War Cults"? I tend to think that the west's best hope of victory will come when mainstream muslims see that the dishonorable, murderous, asymetrical warfare practiced by the cultist warriors is an unexceptable interpetation of Gabriel's messages to Mohammad.

aguy2[/quote']

 

 

War Cults does not imply that the enemy would impose tyranny, which they would....

 

I've not heard anything better than Islamofascists.

 

Islamic Totalitarianists?

I see a number of valid points there' date=' and can't help but respect where you're coming from with it. But I guess I'm just not convinced that the label is accurate, or that naming it such constitutes an important part of the war against it. I can't say that you're wrong (I can't dispute your point or provide an alternative), but I can say with utter certainty that "reluctance" is NOT an accurate description of my feelings regarding the use of that word.

 

Maybe the best way to put it is to say that I feel it implies a foregone conclusion and sense of indispensability that I find dangerous and presumptive at this stage of the game. Maybe it's just the historian in me, crying out for the need for accuracy. But one thing I can tell you that it is *not*, and that is the centrist in me crying out for fairness. That ain't it at all; I got no problem with calling a spade a spade.

 

One thing is for sure: You've given me something new to think about, for which I'm always grateful. [/quote']

 

Pangloss, and you have made me feel that the term doesn't sit completely well. I don't see a problem with labeling this ideology as fundamentally Islamic but the "fascist" reference brings in Nazism which we all resist as part of some internalized application of Godwin’s law.

 

I do think we need to call the enemy something. Whatever we call it the blank in Islamo_______, I'm not sure it will be any less of a hot button than fascist. As you say, however, the goal is accuracy not "fairness" and I understand that the Nazi analogy is not complete.

 

 

 

'islamofascists' just sounds wrong, like a plea to simply accept that they're bad (cos theyre fascists) without neccesarily using logic. 'islamopaedophiles' would be in a similar vein.

 

No, the guys I’m talking about have tyrannical tendencies. They fuse religion and political power and pedophilia has nothing to do with any of this.

 

The founders of our nation understood that mixing religion and politics was a perilous mix and any accurate term should describe that this movement mixes religion with tyranny.

 

Not saying thats what you're doing, but it might account for resistance to it's use.

 

I think, probably, it's just resistance to going down the path that the term suggests coupled with the laudable tradition in Western democracies of tolerance.

It's also historically inconsistant: the kkk, the nazis etc have never (afaik) been reffered to as christiofaschists, so i guess the knee-jerk reaction might be that 'if they're not christiofaschists, why islamofaschists?'

 

If you read Mein Kampf you’ll see references to Christianity but I don’t think the thrust of Hitler's message was religious. Hitler cynically used religion where it suited him but religion was not the primary force behind his message. In fact, if you look at the table of contents for Mein Kampf, not one word directly relates to religion.

 

Likewise, the KKK uses Christianity but its hatred flows from racial bigotry which they, of course, partially justify with religion. If you feel like being slimed, take a look at the KKK’s web page and you’ll see, bottom line, their goal is political power to use for these purposes:

 

A. Become the leader of the White racialist movement

B. Strive to become the representative and driving force behind the White Community

C. Organize and direct white people to a level of activism necessary to bring about a political victory.

 

In Ireland much of the motivating force behind the terrorism was religious and we talked about the Catholic IRA. The problem here is that we have never had a cohesive Christian movement in modern history devoted to the establishment of a world-wide Christian theocracy by violent acts against civilians. If such a movement existed and emanated from countries which were tyrannical, I would call them Christiofascists... or Christio... something or other to do with tyranny; Christiodespots... Christiotheocrats; Christiocrats... Christiofreedomhaters.

 

I'm not sure an apt labeling of this movement would be any more comforting than Christiofascists.

 

All of this said, I agree that there are a variety of motivations behind Islamo .... er, the guys who were described by B. Lewis as follows:

 

"For Usama bin Laden and those who share in his views – and they are many – the object of the struggle is the elimination of intrusive Western power and corrupting Western influence from all the lands of Islam, and the restoration of Islamic authenticity and authority in these lands. When this has been accomplished, the stage will be set for the final struggle to bring God’s message to all mankind in all the world."

I'm afraid you're on your own with this one' date=' Jim. No offense, but this seems like Fox News Channel territory to me, and kinda beneath you. I can't even accept the premise that the term is an accurate one, so how can I accept the criticism that we're "reluctant to use it", as if it's the accurate term and therefore only logical to use? It's like two erroneous arguments rolled into one. (chuckle)

 

Like I said, no offense intended. Maybe I'm just not getting where you're coming from here. [/quote']

 

Pangloss, as I thought about this today, I think you've proven my point. I don't say this combatitively and I agree it is not the "left" that gives Islamofascism a pass. I think what I meant to say is that most Americans do not even want to name it as such. In fact, to do so is Fox Newsish and even "beneath me," which I'll take as a compliment.

 

Most of us understand that we are facing a global ideology that would like to see chaos, death and destruction in America. This ideology has a religious component. It could be said that these people are no Muslims just as, I suppose, it could have been said that the people fighting in N. Ireland weren't Catholics or Protestants. But the fact remains that this ideology professes to be of Islam just as the IRA claimed to be Catholic.

 

If, then, it should be acceptable to say that the enemy is Islamic, the next question is whether it is acceptable to say they are fascist. Many Muslims aren't fascist and I'm not referring to them. Iran clearly is led by a theistic (Islamic) fascist government. I don't think it was beneath B. Lewis to wish for the outcome of freedom in such countries just as most in America wished for the liberation of the Germans and then the Poles, French, etc., etc. He drew a direct analogy to Nazism which IMO is entirely appropriate.

 

I would never label you as from the left and I have the utmost respect for you. However, I wonder if you haven't proven a larger point in the way you responded. There is an instinctive and laudable reaction to someone tarring another person's religion in this country. It's part of what makes our pluralistic society possible.

 

As has been said by others, I think we have to be accurate in framing the enemy in any war. We are not fighting a war against terror any more than we are fighting a war against any particular tactic. Wars are fought against enemies and this debate is about defining the enemy. If you have a better term, I'd love to hear it but we have to call them something, don't we?

I'm afraid you're on your own with this one' date=' Jim. No offense, but this seems like Fox News Channel territory to me, and kinda beneath you. I can't even accept the premise that the term is an accurate one, so how can I accept the criticism that we're "reluctant to use it", as if it's the accurate term and therefore only logical to use? It's like two erroneous arguments rolled into one. (chuckle)

 

Like I said, no offense intended. Maybe I'm just not getting where you're coming from here. [/quote']

 

No offense taken.

 

My view comes more from Bernard Lewis whom even Slate has said ""is not just a historian, he himself is a historical figure [producing] groundbreaking work and lucid works of the highest order." David Landes of Harvard University wrote:

 

Muslims have the feeling that history has somehow betrayed them, and on no comparable issue is the historian's potential contribution more important -- the more so because the subject is plagued by ideological commitments, partisan blather, and the constraints of political correctness. People have shunned the topic for all the wrong reasons. All the more reason to be grateful for Bernard Lewis' interventions. No one knows the languages and motivations of the players, and no one is more reliable in the objectivity of his judgments.

 

I've quoted before this conclusion to his post-9/11 afterward to the book, "What Went Wrong: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East:"

 

For Usama bin Laden and those who share in his views – and they are many – the object of the struggle is the elimination of intrusive Western power and corrupting Western influence from all the lands of Islam, and the restoration of Islamic authenticity and authority in these lands. When this has been accomplished, the stage will be set for the final struggle to bring God’s message to all mankind in all the world.

 

But not all Muslims see the struggle in these terms. For growing numbers, the issue is not religion or nationality, not this or that frontier or territory, but freedom – the right to live their own lives, in a free and open society under a representative and responsible government. For them the prime enemy is not the outsider, be he defined as foreigner, as infidel, or as imperialist, but their own rulers, regimes that maintain themselves by tyranny at home and terrorism abroad and have failed by every measure of governmental achievement except survival. The numbers and influence of these freedom seekers are difficult to assess, since the public expression of such views is forbidden and subject to the direst penalties. They receive little help from those who should be their natural allies in the free world, notably those who present themselves as friends and advocates, but who prefer to deal with corrupt tyrants, provided that they are amenable, rather than risk the hazards of regime change.

 

One can only hope that, in time, the cause of freedom will triumph once again as it has already triumphed over the Nazis and the Communists. If it does not, the outlook for the Islamic world, and perhaps for the West, will be grim.

 

I agree that this language is more nuanced than the label "Islamofascism." However, it is easier to use the label than to requote this text in every post.

 

I've italicised the section of this work that speaks of giving, for want of a better phrase, Islamofascism, a pass.

There seems to be some confusion in this thread on which particular' date=' current 'campaign' in progress, constitutes the current 'war'. Normally a 'war' of any significance is comprised of 'campaigns' that can be concurrent, sequential, or in large scale 'wars', both.

 

The current world situation would seem to indicate that the world is involved in a global conflict of sufficent scale to be called, in truth, ww4; or some similarilly discriptive terminology.

 

Do you think someone should do a poll?

aguy2[/quote']

 

Aguy, I had a thread on Gingrich's recent reference to this conflict as "WWIII." I said at the time that I thought that language was significant and I see it echoed in the Bush/Blair news conference.

 

The conflict is global and it is life in death but you are right that it is not being fought as a traditional war.

The problem with making such threats is that in order to be credible, we need to be able to follow through with them. Right now, it doesn't look like we can.

It was credible to Libya, although I wonder whether Libya regrets its move now that the policy is being undermined. Unfortunately, we have a dynamic similiar to that which occurred with the Tet offensive where our public reacts to every bomb blast killing Iraqi's lining up to be in the military and ignores far greater act of courage which put those poeople in that line in the first place. Millions of Iraqi's courageously stand up to this terrorism but they are given short shrift and pushed out of headlines by simple acts of destruction. Perception is starting to trump the reality on the ground.

In any event, what is the alternative to the Bush Doctrine? To permit terrorist groups to hide in countries like Afghanistan and Iran, cook up plots and WMDs and launch them with impunity against the US? We have no choice but to become credible as we initially were to Libya.

Jim' date=' who exactly is giving Islamofascism a pass?

 

Is it a higher percentage of people on the left than the percentage of people all around that believe Jesus will return to Earth in a UFO?[/quote']

 

We've even seen on this board where there is a reluctance to even use the term Islamofascism. We had several posts lambasting the Christian Right but when similiar characterizations are used against Islamofascists, there is a backlash.

 

Starting with Gingrich and culminating in Blair last week, I think many are realizing that there is a need to identify the enemy. Here's Blair who, I think, is brilliant:

 

And what changed policy was September the 11th. That changed policy. But actually, before September the 11th, this global movement with a global ideology was already in being. September the 11th was the culmination of what they wanted to do.

 

But actually, you know -- and this is probably where the policymakers such as myself were truly in error -- is that even before September the 11th this was happening in all sorts of different ways in different countries.

 

I mean, in Algeria for example, tens and tens of thousands of people lost their lives.

 

This movement has grown. It is there. It will latch onto any cause that it possibly can and give it a dimension of terrorism and hatred.

 

You can see this. You can see it in Kashmir, for example. You can see it in Chechnya, you know? You can see it in Palestine.

 

Now, what is its purpose?

 

BLAIR: Its purpose is to promote its ideology based on a perversion of Islam and to use any methods at all, but particularly terrorism, to do that. Because they know that the value of terrorism to them is -- as I was saying a moment or two ago -- it's not simply the act of terror, it's the chain reaction that terror brings with it.

 

Terrorism brings the reprisal; the reprisal brings the additional hatred; the additional hatred breeds the additional terrorism, and so on.

 

In a small way, we lived through that in Northern Ireland over many, many decades.

 

Now, what happened after September the 11th -- and this explains, I think, the president's policy but also the reason why I have taken the view and still take the view that Britain and America should remain strong allies, shoulder to shoulder, in fighting this battle, is that we are never going to succeed unless we understand they are going to fight hard.

 

The reason why they are doing what they are doing in Iraq at the moment -- and, yes, it's really tough as a result of it -- is because they know that if right in the center of the Middle East, in an Arab Muslim country, you've got a nonsectarian democracy -- in other words people weren't governed either by religious fanatics or secular dictators -- you've got a genuine democracy of the people: How does their ideology flourish in such circumstances?

 

BLAIR: So they have imported the terrorism into that country, preyed on whatever reactionary elements there are to boost it. And that's why we have the issue there.

 

So they have imported the terrorism into that country, preyed on whatever reactionary elements there are to boost it. And that's why we have the issue there.

 

That's why the Taliban are trying to come back in Afghanistan. That is why the moment it looked as if you could get progress in Israel and Palestine, it had to be stopped.

 

That's the moment when, as they say there was a problem in Gaza, so they realized: Well, there's a possibility now we can set Lebanon against Israel.

 

Now, it's a global movement. It's a global ideology.

 

I see a reluctance to think of the problem in these terms because it is wrapped up in religion and we have been conditioned to be tolerant in such m atters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/world/africa/27cnd-somalia.html?_r=1&oref=login

 

^ War is threatening Somalia' date=' Islamofacists are trying to turn the gov't. into another Islamic state. This looks like it can get really ugly, but this is first time I'm really hearing about it. Is the UN/US going to take steps to stop conflict?[/quote']

 

What baffles me is how some on the left fear and even hate the "Christian Right" with a passion in this country but give Islamofascism a pass.

I don't like my president but something he said stays with me and that is The U.S. will make no distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them.

This policy, announced within hours of the attacks of 9/11, resulted in Libya forfeiting its advanced nuclear program. It's implementation has been spotty, as implementation always is, but the policy itself was wise and historic. It is exactly what we need to make these nations understand. If Iran does get nukes, it needs to believe that its very survival depends on maintaining control of its arsenal.

The alternative is to let terrorism marshal the resources and protection of a nation state even as the dangers of technology ramp upwards along an exponential scale.

The world wants is a ceasefire so it can go back to ignoring the problem.

All right' date=' time to whip off the thinly veiled disguise this thread has lingered in.

 

I hinted at Plato's Philosopher King concept. We've adoped decentralized models of government becase we've discovered central regulation by a single person simply doesn't scale. The issues involved become too complex for any one person to possibly comprehend.[/quote']

 

I also am not sure this just comes down to the complexity of scale. I think it has to do with an axiom in this country that there is inherent worth to the individual. We grant that individual rights to be left alone with his own decisions in certain parts of his life and give him power to join with the collective to choose leaders who will make decisions about areas that are fit for collective decision. Even so, we do not give the leaders the right to intrude in certain spheres of the individual.

 

I still see the Philosopher King as the embodying the ultimate form of leadership. Unfortunately, no human would provide the sort of entity necessary to author and revise a purely logical system for regulating any sort of governed body.

 

A method for organizing and semantically annotating (into a unified ontological structure) the entire system of human knowledge (at least digitized human knowledge) would need to be assembled, as well as consciousness capible on acting on that structure as a whole.

 

Such an intelligence (if benevolent) is the only sort of being who could possibly fulfill the role as the ultimate Philosopher King...

 

So, yeah, to sum it up I'm talking about friendly AI here...

 

I'm not sure why government after the singularity, if it comes, still couldn't be participatory. You would think that the logical ability of the members of the community would be enhanced and superstition would be minimized by such creatures.

We are ruled by politics' date=' which, for all intents and purposes, is the art of compromise. Sadly, this includes compromise with illogical people. Therefore, politics can't be purely logical until everyone doing the politicking agrees that all arguments for a position should be free of logical fallacies. Thus politics remains a haphazard, illogical decision making process.

 

It is my belief that a logical government would govern best, and that law should represent a consistent formal logic system with prespecified and universally agreed upon axioms (which can change over time) from which every law can be derived through logical argumentation. I'm not saying this is practical. I'm saying this is best.

 

If axioms change in such a way to invalidate the logic from which particular laws are derived, then those laws should automatically be rendered invalid.

 

I think this is what all governmental systems throughout history have attempted to become. In America, for example, the Constitution would represent our set of axioms, the fundamental set of rules which all other laws must fall within and not invalidate. This set of rules is changable, but the process is difficult.

 

Agree? Disagree?[/quote']

 

The Courts have agreed that the Constitution is the supreme law of our country and that a law which violates the Constitution is invalid. However, I"m not sure if the Constitution represents our set of axioms. For many people, axioms are set by God, not man. People give varying degrees of thought to the question of what, stripped down, are the unshakable axioms which should guide their lives and our laws. Mine are in flux even in some of the debates we are having. I'm not sure what I want to be when I finally do grow up.

I'm kind of getting that too. That's why I asked. I seem to be right in line with most libertarian ideas' date=' but they still have some ridiculous tendencies.

[/quote']

 

 

Yep, I think most of us here at SFN are unelectable in either party.

Perhaps; I guess I can understand your concern. I don't know enough about how that snub would play in the Arab world to know if it constitutes "humiliation", or what impact there would be if such were the case. I could read a dozen articles on this and still not know.

This event struck me as cyncial politics of the worst kind. Maybe I'm wrong.

I think he's coming to terms with the very real possibility of an iranian invasion following a US withdrawal.

 

Just think about it' date=' in a few years when the US makes its withdrawal we will leave iraq with a military just large enough to give the government some legitamacy. And there will still be a large chunk of shiites in the country who would welcome an iranian theocracy.

 

As for the Iranians I'm sure they would be happy to gobble up iraq, remember that the same leaders are there today as those who fought Iraq in the 1980's. And with a few nuclear bombs behind them an exhausted US wouldn't do anything more than fire off some missiles and push for international sanctions.

 

 

^while I do believe that the US would do more than what I outlined above the fact that the above seems so reasonable is cause for alarm.

 

But I'm sure that these thoughts have crossed the mind of the Iraqi Prime Minister and faced with that threat he may be trying to bring the Iraqi government into line with the Iranian government.[/quote']

 

I expect bizzare statements resulting from the democratic process in this area of the world. I expect better of our own leaders.

I disagree' date=' I think it's a reasonable response to a very ignorant and demonstrably dangerous position on the part of the Iraqi PM.

 

It's utterly vapid for him to support Hezbollah or oppose Israel while other Arab nations are actively trying to stop them. Granted he's dealing with an Iran-fueled insurgency, but that just makes it appeasement which is contrary to his country's approach in every other area of engagement (even political).

 

That's not the kind of nation we want in Iraq, it's not the kind of nation IRAQ wants, and it's not the kind of nation ANYBODY ELSE wants in that region, EXCEPT for Iran. Does that actually strike you as something we should [i']support[/i]?

Oh, I agree that the PM is in the wrong but the method here and the timing could not be worse. America's interest is directly engaged in Iraq and humiliating the newly elected PM is not helpful.

This has a bad smell to me. I am very supportive of Israel's position but I'm not sure that the PM's position hurts Israel considering our support. Snubbing the prime minister of Iraq at this time seems almost calculated to disrupt.

It has the smell of blatent politics triumphing over national security. Instead of making his own serious foreign policy statement, here's Schakowsky making the most hay possible against the Bush admininstration:

Unfortunately, it has become clear that the new government in Iraq, which came to power with the blessing of the Bush Administration, does not share the same foreign policy goals ....

 

The Bush Administration, who conceived this tragic war....

 

The Bush Administration was flat wrong....

 

"For that reason we have asked Speaker Hastert to cancel the Iraqi Prime Minister's invitation to address a joint session of Congress if he does not secure an apology or satisfactory clarification...

I'm sure it will help this fledgling democracy if their Prime Minister is humliated before the world. Let's never forget that national security is about blasting Bush. Nothing comes before that primary goal.

I'm sure it is not lost on the dems that the polls show Americans solidly behind Israel in this controversy...

It's amazing to me the way the far left is running around screaming about how Iraq is completely unsalvagable. It's certainly an ugly mess' date=' but there's no logical reason at this point to think it [i']can't[/i] work out. The only motivation for drawing that conclusion at this stage is ideological.

 

It is what it is. We may succeed, we may fail. There's only one way to find out, and their way (immediate withdrawl) ain't it. It's wrong, they know it's wrong, and they can't sell it to anybody, so they're left with nothing but an inconvenient, inapplicable, intractable lie.

I couldn't say it any better Pangloss. I only wish the survey had asked questions to discover how much the shift in the right track/wrong track numbers from 2004 - 2006 relates to Iraqi perception of America's lack of resolve as gleaned from the MSM.

Hmmm.. If 9/11 is part of his core discipline and he actually intends to teach this stuff in the classroom, I would let him go. It would be like having a economics professor who teaches that money grows on trees.

If there was not a nexus between his discipline and the claim, I would probably let it pass on free speech grounds.

Sounds like it is the former as he is going to teach a course on Islam.

Survey taken from June 14-June 24, 2006 with 2,849 valid interviews of total sample of 3,120 in 18 of Iraq's 18 provinces. Margin of Error - +/- 3%

Do you feel tha Iraq is generally heading in the right direction or wrong direction?

Right: 41%

Wrong: 35%

Don't Know: 19%

No answer: 5%

Baghdad, Kurdish, Mid-Euphrates and South areas had less than 25% wrong direction poll numbers. Northern Arab = 86% Wrong Direction; Sunni Areas = 63% Wrong Direction.

Note that the Right Direction numbers start at 51% in 5/04, peak at 67% in 4/05, dipped to 30% in 3/06 (the first poll ever where the right direction number dipped below the wrong direction) before going to 41% in 6/06.

From reading previous polls, the right direction numbers are less influenced than in 2004 by the "getting rid of regime" responses, whereas the wrong direction results are more influenced by the "presence of occupation" responses.

Consistently, more Iraqi's have felt better about the future than worse; however, this number has declined in 2006.

55% approve of the job done by PM Al-Maliki, whereas 20% disapprove.

I could go on but the point here is that the true picture in Iraq appears to be complex and the most important and clear result was the following:

89% felt the establishment of a unity government was "extremely important" to the future peace and stablity of Iraq. Even in the Kurdish and Sunni areas this number was at 75% and 97% respectively. In fact, the Sunni area was the highest here....

66% Strongly Disagree with the suggestion of segregating Iraqis according to religious or ethnic sect. 12% Disagree. Only in the Kurdish areas did the percentage agreeing exceed 7%.

75% describe the security conditions in Iraq as "poor" whereas only 38% describe the conditions as poor in their own neighborhood.

Here’s a interesting article written on February 16, 2004

Hezbollah, Hostages, and the United States

 

 

The lopsided prisoner exchange is only the latest in a long series of Hezbollah successes. The truck bombings in the early 1980s against US installations in Lebanon that forced the US-led peacekeeping force out of Lebanon inspired bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Lebanon’s war against the Israeli presence in southern Lebanon culminated in May 2000 in Israel’s complete withdrawal and the collapse of Israel’s ally the South Lebanon Army. Israel’s withdrawal was one factor inspiring the Palestinian violence that began in September 2000.

 

The prisoner exchange, in which Israel released over four hundred individuals held for terrorism in exchange for three bodies and one person, was unbalanced and has been interpreted throughout the Arab world as a sign of Israel’s weakness. A few voices have noted that it shows Israel’s sense of responsibility towards its citizens (one of the bodies returned was of an Israeli Arab serving in the IDF.) This is a compelling argument, but these exchanges often explode on Israel. In 1985 Ahmed Jibril, head of the PFLP-GC, traded three Israeli soldiers he had captured in the 1982 Lebanon war for over 1000 Palestinian terrorists. Jibril had prisoners from every Palestinian faction released in order to build the PFLP-GC’s profile within the Palestinian movement. One of the prisoners released was Hamas founder Sheikh Yassin. His return revitalized Hamas, allowing it to spearhead the first Intifada.

 

Hezbollah hostage taking is not limited to Israel – the Iran-Contra scandal, which rocked the second term of the Reagan administration, was caused by Hezbollah’s taking American hostages in Lebanon (they also took British, French and other Europeans hostage). The US and France paid Iran off with cash and reduced support for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, in exchange for hostage releases.

 

As Hezbollah builds infrastructure in Iraq it is all too conceivable that taking foreign hostages will soon become part of their strategy.

A 1000:3 ratio in 1982. A 400:1 in 2004. 1000:2 in 2006?

Hezbollah has historically placed a disproportionate value on the lives of Israeli soldiers over their own. Israel seems to now understand that these lopsided exchanges paint a bullseye on Israeli soldiers.

Love to see that one. But is he going to try to take away gambling or the lottery? My parents love that cherokee casino in catoosa.

I wish he would! Are you from around here Walrusman?

See, that's the problem Jim. You're watching CNN, the liberal mother tree of the news networks. These are the same people that fell for the "Milk Factory" report in the first Gulf War. They actually believe that Hezbollah cares about the civilians they hide within just because they staged an evacuation attempt.

Heh, actually I was channel surfing but it's true that I'm a sucker for left-wing broadcasting...

The thing is, by making a big deal about this WWIII thing with Gingrich, you're basically saying we can't call a spade a spade when we think it's a damn spade. This isn't being political. You may not agree with Republicans, I certainly don't, but there are a few ( a very select few, I might add ) politicians out there that are intellectually valuable and intelligent and he's one of them. I truly don't believe he's playing political games.

Actually, next to you, I'm probably the most sympathetic person on this board to Gingrich's position. I do think that Gingrich is aware of the political impact of calling this WWIII and he said as much. This isn't, necessarily, a bad thing.

So, to me, that means he's calling it how he sees it.

 

And Jim, you didn't include the long list of reasons why, which Newt runs through. I don't blame you though because it would take alot of space here on the forum. But that's crucial to this WWIII wording that he's using. There's a good reason why he's calling it that. Quite convincing, when you consider the current issues and state of affairs preceding WWII.

Oh, I agree but I like to see both sides and Gingrich expressed a fairly extreme position. That's why they call me The Voice of Moderate Reason.

Oh and Jim, is it hot enough for ya' in T-town?

Heck yeah! I'm believing in that global warming stuff tonight.

I thought we might share some of the more interesting local political spots from our various areas.

My favorite is from a dark horse governatorial candidate in Oklahoma by the name of Jim Evanhoff. I've only seen it once because the guy probably has no money. The spot starts with two folksy farmers talking about high gas prices and illegal immigration. One of the gentlemen farmers says something like, "Bud, did you know Jim Evanhoff has a plan to stop illegal immigration?" Bud, visibily excited, replies, "Well then I'm going to vote for Jim Evanhoff!"

The camera flicks to Jim who promises that he does indeed have a plan to solve these problems. He concedes that his opponents have plans too but he says are like this as he looks down to his feet. The camera follows his look, panning down Jim's rather rotund belly to his feet at which several small signs of his opponents have been planted in large steaming piles of cow crap.

I looked in vain for the spot on the web but I thought it was too funny not to pass on. Maybe it's something you just have to see but I'm still laughing.

FYI, I just saw a short clip on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 about this issue, starting with the Gingrich interview on Meet the Press. Supposedly they will have a segment later in the program on the impact of characterizing this as WWIII.

I wasn't talking about public discussion, and, "Is it okay to at least think these things?" is a blatant strawman and rather beneath you, Jim.

I did think you were not wanting this in the public discourse and what I said is a logical extension of what I thought you were saying. If that is not what you meant, nevermind.

I'm talking about your OP, and where this war is aimed. Is it aimed at Islam or is it aimed at fascist groups who would manipulate otherwise reasonable people? We'd better be sure because if we mix the two, guess what the fascists will pounce upon, Islam or fascism? I agree that they will try to manipulate anyway but we don't need to help by making this The World vs Islam. If we're going to use the WWIII label and bring Nazi images to the public awareness, I think we should make sure we are targeting the oppressor here, and I for one am not yet willing to believe it is all of Islam.

Phi, no one in either of the articles I linked or any of the posts in this thread said that the enemy is "all of Islam." That is indeed a blatent strawman which isn't even a legitimate inference from what I was arguing.