Prepare For War With Israel

[Jonsa]

Dre I think it ridiculous to pretend the Muslim Brotherhood is anything but fascist. In fact I would like to know on what basis you deny their fascist origins and fascist ideology. You are quick to say its ridiculous to call them fascist why? They are fascist. They have never hidden their fascist origins and their open admiration of Hitler and everything Hitler stood for. You'll have to do better then simply call people ridiculous because you want to revise history and ignore their origins or their ideology and now try paint them as cuddly bearded men.

My references for contending that the Muslim Brotherhood is a fascist organization and a puppet of Nazis, then the British, then the CIA and now has broken off again and is necessarily and inherently anti-semitic can be found here:

http://www.shoaheducation.com/muslimnazi.html

http://media0.terrorismawareness.org/files/NaziRoots.pdf

http://lightonthings.blogspot.com/2010/11/arab-muslim-nazism-documentation-your.html

http://jewishrefugees.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-we-should-fear-muslim-brotherhood.html

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/muslimbrotherhood.html

http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/islamic-jihad-articles/on-the-foundations-of-muslim-brotherhood-alqaeda-and-dr-zindane/

http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/op-ed/probing-the-history-of-the-muslim-nazi-alliance/

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/163591

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11146

http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/tag/muslim-brotherhood

http://www.aina.org/news/2007070595517.htm

http://arabracismislamofascism.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/arab-muslim-nazism-documentation-your-reference-guide/

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/02/03/hannity-cleric-fight-over-isla

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=764

The MB is not facist if one uses the classical definition of facsism. while there are a number of common "planks", there are some major differences.

The MB are certainly not corporatists but they are "nationalists" in that they desire the return of the caliphate.

The MB are not imperialists.

The MB do not share any kind of economic philosophy with Fascism.

The MB are egalitarians where the facists weren't anything like that.

The MB are religiously orthodox, true facists were secular.

Both are authoritarian, and one can equivocate MB's view of Islam with a form of Facsisms nationalism/racism beliefts.

Facists certainly couldn't be accused of being charitible, one of the five pillars of Islam.

I think jack is absolutely correct. Facism and Islamofacism are rather different animals.

Now, as to MB origins, they had nothing to do with fascism. And their alignment with the Nazis had much much more to do with colonialism and loss of muslim lands (palestine). Shared emnity towards jews was the cherry on top.

I reviewed your list of sites and most of them are rather unflinchingly biased. I mean no insult to shoaeducation or the jvl. But daniel pipes and arabracismislamofascism let alone the american spectator quoting that all american racist hannity who hasn't yet found a muslim, socialist, black president or democrat he likes?

I'd like to say that nothing is black and white in realpolitik and one shoudl strive to be "fair and balanced", but unfortunately the phrase has been hijacked by FOXNews.

[bud]

The MB is not facist if one uses the classical definition of facsism. while there are a number of common "planks", there are some major differences.

The MB are certainly not corporatists but they are "nationalists" in that they desire the return of the caliphate.

The MB are not imperialists.

The MB do not share any kind of economic philosophy with Fascism.

The MB are egalitarians where the facists weren't anything like that.

The MB are religiously orthodox, true facists were secular.

Both are authoritarian, and one can equivocate MB's view of Islam with a form of Facsisms nationalism/racism beliefts.

Facists certainly couldn't be accused of being charitible, one of the five pillars of Islam.

I think jack is absolutely correct. Facism and Islamofacism are rather different animals.

Now, as to MB origins, they had nothing to do with fascism. And their alignment with the Nazis had much much more to do with colonialism and loss of muslim lands (palestine). Shared emnity towards jews was the cherry on top.

I reviewed your list of sites and most of them are rather unflinchingly biased. I mean no insult to shoaeducation or the jvl. But daniel pipes and arabracismislamofascism let alone the american spectator quoting that all american racist hannity who hasn't yet found a muslim, socialist, black president or democrat he likes?

I'd like to say that nothing is black and white in realpolitik and one shoudl strive to be "fair and balanced", but unfortunately the phrase has been hijacked by FOXNews.

bravo. nice response.

[Rue]

The MB is not facist if one uses the classical definition of facsism. while there are a number of common "planks", there are some major differences.

The MB are certainly not corporatists but they are "nationalists" in that they desire the return of the caliphate.

The MB are not imperialists.

The MB do not share any kind of economic philosophy with Fascism.

The MB are egalitarians where the facists weren't anything like that.

The MB are religiously orthodox, true facists were secular.

Both are authoritarian, and one can equivocate MB's view of Islam with a form of Facsisms nationalism/racism beliefts.

Facists certainly couldn't be accused of being charitible, one of the five pillars of Islam.

I think jack is absolutely correct. Facism and Islamofacism are rather different animals.

Now, as to MB origins, they had nothing to do with fascism. And their alignment with the Nazis had much much more to do with colonialism and loss of muslim lands (palestine). Shared emnity towards jews was the cherry on top.

I reviewed your list of sites and most of them are rather unflinchingly biased. I mean no insult to shoaeducation or the jvl. But daniel pipes and arabracismislamofascism let alone the american spectator quoting that all american racist hannity who hasn't yet found a muslim, socialist, black president or democrat he likes?

I'd like to say that nothing is black and white in realpolitik and one shoudl strive to be "fair and balanced", but unfortunately the phrase has been hijacked by FOXNews.

Excellent response. I could continue to debate the semantics of the word "fascist" with you but I do appreciate the very well stated retorts distinguishing Islamofascism from Nazi fascism. No they are not the same for all the reasons you pointed out but they are both types of fascism.

Most certainly some of the sites I provided have very clear biases. No more so then the ones Dre would use in reverse. I do most certainly concede some of the articles are pure opinion pieces.

[Rue]

Excellent response. I could continue to debate the semantics of the word "fascist" with you but I do appreciate the very well stated retorts distinguishing Islamofascism from Nazi fascism. No they are not the same for all the reasons you pointed out but they are both types of fascism.

Most certainly some of the sites I provided have very clear biases. No more so then the ones Dre would use in reverse. I do most certainly concede some of the articles are pure opinion pieces.

Call it Islamo fascism fine, but to ne it is a strain of fascism. I also have a problem with the notion it is equalitarian. Its anything but. It defines non Muslims pf Muslims other then the ones it deems acceptable as inferiors. As I write this Muslim Brotherhood members in Indonesia incited an attack against Christians. There is nothing equalitarian in that. That by its very nation makes it elitist. Also the claim its not imperialist is an interesting one. Setting up a caliphate is what? Its the creation of an imperial empire.

The form of Muslim caliphate the Muslim Brotherhood calls for necessarily calls for the spread and conquering of different cultures all in the name of one uniform, centrally opposed theocratic organ.

I always find words like imperialist and colonalist absurd anyways. They were expropriated by Marxists and Marxist regimes and have been used in absurd ways that make no sense. The Arab League of States was nothing more than a network of colonial state puppets and yet revisionists change history now to pretend Israel was colonial and the powets fighting Israel were anti-colonial. In fact the Jews of Israel were refugees from colonialism seeking their freedom and encountered colonial puppet regimes and revisionists twisted this around.

Colonialist? Imperialist? You think the Caliphate vision is any different then say the Japanese one of World War Two?

I say no. I say For the Soviet Union to refer for example to the U.S. as imperialists when it was setting up puppet regimes across the world no different then the U.S. was a joke. The words mean nothing anymore. They have been overused in so many selective subjective contexts as to have lost their meaning er at least so I think.

Edited February 8, 2011 by Rue

[KeyStone]

He added that “the people should be prepared for war against Israel,” - all part of the usual Islamist aim I suppose, but sure the Brotherhood wants power, they are waiting for the chance. They are anti west and anti Israel, I believe they care more about those beliefs than really helping Egyptians.

The status quo isn't the best option but it's better than an Islamist theocracy, better to support M. now to keep stability, with the caveat that there has to be democratic reform. IMO the U.S. has a chance here to help stabilize the situation.

So, if we have to choose between democracy and an Israeli friendly leader, we pick an Israeli friendly leader?

So, all this talk about how important democracy is, really only applies to countries, where the US is looking to effect regime change?

And in your opinion, if the people of Egypt would elect a leader who is antagonistic towards Israel, then we should ignore the will of those filthy Ay-Raaaaaabs?

[Jonsa]

Call it Islamo fascism fine, but to ne it is a strain of fascism. I also have a problem with the notion it is equalitarian. Its anything but. It defines non Muslims pf Muslims other then the ones it deems acceptable as inferiors. As I write this Muslim Brotherhood members in Indonesia incited an attack against Christians. There is nothing equalitarian in that. That by its very nation makes it elitist. Also the claim its not imperialist is an interesting one. Setting up a caliphate is what? Its the creation of an imperial empire.

It is egalitarian within Islam. I am well aware dhimmitude.

The form of Muslim caliphate the Muslim Brotherhood calls for necessarily calls for the spread and conquering of different cultures all in the name of one uniform, centrally opposed theocratic organ.

Its not imperialism. Within the caliphate there would be only equality for all muslims. And, while Islam was spread by wars, that pretty much ended by the 19th century.

I always find words like imperialist and colonalist absurd anyways. They were expropriated by Marxists and Marxist regimes and have been used in absurd ways that make no sense. The Arab League of States was nothing more than a network of colonial state puppets and yet revisionists change history now to pretend Israel was colonial and the powets fighting Israel were anti-colonial. In fact the Jews of Israel were refugees from colonialism seeking their freedom and encountered colonial puppet regimes and revisionists twisted this around.

Interesting perspective. My take on the history of zionism and Israel doesn't remotely conclude that the jews were refugees from colonialism. How so?

Colonialist? Imperialist? You think the Caliphate vision is any different then say the Japanese one of World War Two?

Completely and totally different. The Japanese expanded to acquire material wealth and ruled by subjugation of entire populations. The vision of the Caliphate is expansion to achieve religious objectives and ruled thru established religous hierarchical autocratic mechanisms.

I say no. I say For the Soviet Union to refer for example to the U.S. as imperialists when it was setting up puppet regimes across the world no different then the U.S. was a joke. The words mean nothing anymore. They have been overused in so many selective subjective contexts as to have lost their meaning er at least so I think.

To me words have particularly important meaning. The fact that many of lexically challenged misuse and abuse words does not change the word's actual meaning. Take the misuse of the word "socialism" in american politics today. I doubt that 20% of those that use it know what it means, but their audiences do know its something to FEAR.

[Bonam]

Honestly we'd be a lot better off with a Caliphate. One strong, organized, central government for the Arab world for us to deal with, negotiate with, etc, instead of dozens of failing states and hundreds of terrorist groups? I'll take the former any day. If they tried to actually militarily conquer stuff, it would be easy enough to keep them in check.

[bud]

Honestly we'd be a lot better off with a Caliphate. One strong, organized, central government for the Arab world for us to deal with, negotiate with, etc, instead of dozens of failing states and hundreds of terrorist groups? I'll take the former any day. If they tried to actually militarily conquer stuff, it would be easy enough to keep them in check.

most of these terrorist organizations have been created as a reaction to the atmosphere around them. it has nothing to do with wanting to conquer other countries.

bin laden has been consistent in giving his reasons for al quaeda and its affiliates' actions; the reasons are the following:

• Western countries' hand in keeping dictators (such as mubarak in egypt, saudi monarchy, karzai in afghanistan, etc.) in power. which usually ends up not being in the best interest of the people who live under these rulers.
  
• israel's treatment of palestinians and u.s.' unconditional support for them
  
• western countries' attack on muslim countries. take iraq for example. there was no al quaeda in iraq before u.s. attacked it.
  

there is a cause for all of this mess and if we want to solve the problem, we need to admit and accept our responsibilities for the problems.

[Bonam]

most of these terrorist organizations have been created as a reaction to the atmosphere around them. it has nothing to do with wanting to conquer other countries.

bin laden has been consistent in giving his reasons for al quaeda and its affiliates' actions; the reasons are the following:

• Western countries' hand in keeping dictators (such as mubarak in egypt, saudi monarchy, karzai in afghanistan, etc.) in power. which usually ends up not being in the best interest of the people who live under these rulers.
  
• israel's treatment of palestinians and u.s.' unconditional support for them
  
• western countries' attack on muslim countries. take iraq for example. there was no al quaeda in iraq before u.s. attacked it.
  

there is a cause for all of this mess and if we want to solve the problem, we need to admit and accept our responsibilities for the problems.

Justifying bin laden's actions now? A new low even for you. Also, your response has little/nothing to do with my post.

[bud]

Justifying bin laden's actions now? A new low even for you.

wtf are you talking about? when did i 'justify' the actions, you muppet?

Also, your response has little/nothing to do with my post.

it does. because you are regurgitating the simpleton response by saying that 'they want to conquer us' like this is the reason we're seeing terrorist attacks. you have once again failed to take into consideration and put into the equation our actions around the world.

[Jonsa]

most of these terrorist organizations have been created as a reaction to the atmosphere around them. it has nothing to do with wanting to conquer other countries.

bin laden has been consistent in giving his reasons for al quaeda and its affiliates' actions; the reasons are the following:

• Western countries' hand in keeping dictators (such as mubarak in egypt, saudi monarchy, karzai in afghanistan, etc.) in power. which usually ends up not being in the best interest of the people who live under these rulers.
  
• israel's treatment of palestinians and u.s.' unconditional support for them
  
• western countries' attack on muslim countries. take iraq for example. there was no al quaeda in iraq before u.s. attacked it.
  

there is a cause for all of this mess and if we want to solve the problem, we need to admit and accept our responsibilities for the problems.

Binnie and his gang of religious maniacs give a lot of excuses for the actions and few real reasons. It all comes down to religious interpretation (thank Zawahiri for radicalizing religious fanatics). In the end its all about dar-al-salaam, a world embracing Islam paving the way for judgement day. Its pretty simple really and spelled out in detail in their book.

You think Binnie cares about democracy? No he just doesn't like the existing dictators - none are worthy of being Caliph and he particularly doesn't like the Saudi Royalty, viewing them as the ultimate hypocrites corrupted by money and the West.

Binnie could care less how Israel treats palestinians. there aren't many arab nations (if any) that care about the palestinians, but they sure hate Israel. Its Israel's existance (nation of jews) and the fact that what was part of the ummah is no longer. Also that pride thing of arabs getting their asses handed to them constantly by lowly jews.

Western attacks on muslims is another red herring.Didn't the west defend muslims in the Balkans and in Kuwait? AQ has killed way way more muslims than they have christians or jews. AQ attacks muslims claiming they either aren't muslim enough or they are apostates.

Believe AQ justifications if you will.

Now the MB essentially want the same thing as AQ. However, they do not beleive that violence is the appropriate means of attaining the Islamic World. The caliphate as defined by history (or glen beck) isn't the end game, simple geography informs us its merely a step.

[Rue]

Jonsa allow moi to debate some of your comments I placed in quotes:

"It is egalitarian within Islam."

Far from it. The Muslim Brotherhood depending on its cell is far from egalitarian to other Muslims outside its cell. The treatment of Amidyah Muslims by the Muslim Brotherhood is anything but egalitarian. The treatment of progressive Muslims is anything but egalitarian. The on-going disputes between Shiite and Muslim sects and the battle between certain Muslim Brotherhoods which are Sunni with non Muslim brotherhood groups that are Shiite speaks for itself. It not only discriminates against non Muslims but any Muslim who does not pray the same way as the Muslim Brotherhood sect pontificating its righteousness.

You stated:

"Its not imperialism. Within the caliphate there would be only equality for all muslims. And, while Islam was spread by wars, that pretty much ended by the 19th century."

Not sure what you are referencing. The inter-secretarian religious wars between Muslim sects speak for themselves. If you don't think Islam is still spread by war go take that up with the Muslim terrorists in the Phillipines, Chechnya, China,Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, or how about you start with Morrocco, Libya, Algeria, Iran and the Sudan and tell me what do you think happened in the last century with them. What do you think happened in world war one, two, in 1948, in 1956, in 1967, 1973. You think these many wars and confrontations had no Muslim religious fuel to them?

You stated:

"Interesting perspective." i.e., the concept that Jewish refugees escaped colonialism. Tell me who do you think the Jews fleed from in Europe if not colonialists? What would you call Europeans?

What would you tell the 900,000 Jews forcefully expelled from the Arab League nations they were fleeing from?

I am not the one to revise history to define refugees as opporessive colonialists.

Know who started that? You might want to go find out. It was Stalin, the very same Stalin who originally defined the Jews as victims of colonialism fighting neo colonial puppets (the Arab league of nations).

The Soviets saw the Jews of Palestine as comrades and Stalin's decision to send them 200,000 Jews along with Elenor Roosevelt's single handed 3 year diplomatic battle are the two key reasons Israel came about. The third was Czechoslovakia's support of the Jews of Palestine and the haganah. The Czech's would never have been allowed to help the Jews without the Soviet Union's approval as it was a puppet state of Stalin.

The revision of history to define Jews as colonialists and colonial puppet stooge Arab empires as 3rd world victims came about from former officers of Josef Goebels who moved to Damascus post WW2 and set up the Ministry of Communications in Syria and created and broadcast this revisionist platform that to this day is repeated.

Its a Nazi script, nothing but a regurgitated Nazi script ironically which Stalin had no problem buying into in the 1950's when he decided it was more advantageous to back the Arab League then Israel. Then again he could have been like the British who openly flew the Egyptian Air Force planes that attacked the Jews of Palestine in the independence war and led its armies or the French who sold weapons to the Arabs. Ah you have to like the British and French because when Israel won its independence France had no problem building the Israeli post office, telegraph system, government bureaucracy and even a nuclear reactor all at the same time as supporting Syria, Lebanon, Tunisia, Morrocco and Algeria all technically at war with Israel at the same time.

The British had no problems with the French using Ben Gurion as their toy during the Suez Canal crisis while at the same time courting Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan.

The Soviets realized in 1949 Israel would never turn its back on the U.S. or democracy and decided it would back the same regimes it called neo colonialist. So it had no problem suddenly becoming the sponsor of Egypt, Syria and Iraq.

Meanwhile the Muslim Brotherhood went from a Nazi fascist party to a British-French puppet and then later a CIA puppet before it evolved to what it is today.

This is why I find your neat black and white definitions of who is a colonialist or imperialist absurd. The fact is anyone could be described as either. Its like describing oneself as moderate or left wing or right wing. Its meaningless. Such words necessarily take on the subjective bias of the person throwing them out as to what they mean.

To me there is but only one kind of political ideologist, and that is an opportunist. I subscribe to the Oleg Bachian belief that we all know what politics is-its only the amount you have to pay one that is in question.

Completely and totally different. The Japanese expanded to acquire material wealth and ruled by subjugation of entire populations. The vision of the Caliphate is expansion to achieve religious objectives and ruled thru established religous hierarchical autocratic mechanisms.

To me words have particularly important meaning. The fact that many of lexically challenged misuse and abuse words does not change the word's actual meaning. Take the misuse of the word "socialism" in american politics today. I doubt that 20% of those that use it know what it means, but their audiences do know its something to FEAR.

[GostHacked]

Justifying bin laden's actions now? A new low even for you. Also, your response has little/nothing to do with my post.

It does not justify it, but at least it shows WHY Bin Laden attacked the WTC. Bin Laden said it was because the infidels have been messing with the Arab world for too long.

[Bonam]

It does not justify it, but at least it shows WHY Bin Laden attacked the WTC. Bin Laden said it was because the infidels have been messing with the Arab world for too long.

Yes. And because bin Laden says so, it must be true!

[Jonsa]

Jonsa allow moi to debate some of your comments I placed in quotes:

"It is egalitarian within Islam."

Far from it. The Muslim Brotherhood depending on its cell is far from egalitarian to other Muslims outside its cell. The treatment of Amidyah Muslims by the Muslim Brotherhood is anything but egalitarian. The treatment of progressive Muslims is anything but egalitarian. The on-going disputes between Shiite and Muslim sects and the battle between certain Muslim Brotherhoods which are Sunni with non Muslim brotherhood groups that are Shiite speaks for itself. It not only discriminates against non Muslims but any Muslim who does not pray the same way as the Muslim Brotherhood sect pontificating its righteousness.

I am aware of the schisms within Islam. It mirrors the Catholic/Protestant schism before the reformation but is more fundamental. The Amidyah take it farther than most shia sects. I'm not sure what you mean by progressive muslim.

The MB is not a sect, if you read its bylaws you see that it is a political organization. while there are many members who consider shias to be apostates, there have been siginificant efforts on MB's part to mitigate that prejudice over the past few years. Particularly because they can see themselves politically aligned with Iran.

http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=909

You stated:

"Its not imperialism. Within the caliphate there would be only equality for all muslims. And, while Islam was spread by wars, that pretty much ended by the 19th century."

Not sure what you are referencing. The inter-secretarian religious wars between Muslim sects speak for themselves. If you don't think Islam is still spread by war go take that up with the Muslim terrorists in the Phillipines, Chechnya, China,Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, or how about you start with Morrocco, Libya, Algeria, Iran and the Sudan and tell me what do you think happened in the last century with them. What do you think happened in world war one, two, in 1948, in 1956, in 1967, 1973. You think these many wars and confrontations had no Muslim religious fuel to them?

Wow that's a lot too chew on.

Lets start with Muslim Intersectarian religious wars. Er, when and where did these take place in the last two centuries? And no, Iran/Iraq was not a religious war.

Okay now spreading islam through war. Chechnya, Gaza, West Bank, Lebannon, Morocco, Libya, Algeria, Iran all have populations over 90% muslim to begin with. Philipines, China and Sudan (70% muslim) are independence movements. Politically motivated conflict, not religious.

World War I? I am unclear as to what you are referring to here.

The Arab Israeli wars? ENTIRELY politically motivated.

You stated:

"Interesting perspective." i.e., the concept that Jewish refugees escaped colonialism. Tell me who do you think the Jews fleed from in Europe if not colonialists? What would you call Europeans?

What would you tell the 900,000 Jews forcefully expelled from the Arab League nations they were fleeing from?

I'd have to say that the Jews fleeing from Europe, weren't fleeing colonialism.

I'd have to say that the 900,000 Jews expelled from arab nations weren't fleeing colonialism at all.

The Soviets saw the Jews of Palestine as comrades and Stalin's decision to send them 200,000 Jews along with Elenor Roosevelt's single handed 3 year diplomatic battle are the two key reasons Israel came about. The third was Czechoslovakia's support of the Jews of Palestine and the haganah. The Czech's would never have been allowed to help the Jews without the Soviet Union's approval as it was a puppet state of Stalin.

I have to say that your interpretation is rather simplistic and imprecise. I will agree however that the roughly 200,000 immigrants from "eastern europe" and the Czech arms were absolutely critical in the war.

The revision of history to define Jews as colonialists and colonial puppet stooge Arab empires as 3rd world victims came about from former officers of Josef Goebels who moved to Damascus post WW2 and set up the Ministry of Communications in Syria and created and broadcast this revisionist platform that to this day is repeated.

I am not familiar with this at all. do you have a reference or link?

Its a Nazi script, nothing but a regurgitated Nazi script ironically which Stalin had no problem buying into in the 1950's when he decided it was more advantageous to back the Arab League then Israel. Then again he could have been like the British who openly flew the Egyptian Air Force planes that attacked the Jews of Palestine in the independence war and led its armies or the French who sold weapons to the Arabs. Ah you have to like the British and French because when Israel won its independence France had no problem building the Israeli post office, telegraph system, government bureaucracy and even a nuclear reactor all at the same time as supporting Syria, Lebanon, Tunisia, Morrocco and Algeria all technically at war with Israel at the same time.

The British had no problems with the French using Ben Gurion as their toy during the Suez Canal crisis while at the same time courting Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan.

The Soviets realized in 1949 Israel would never turn its back on the U.S. or democracy and decided it would back the same regimes it called neo colonialist. So it had no problem suddenly becoming the sponsor of Egypt, Syria and Iraq.

Meanwhile the Muslim Brotherhood went from a Nazi fascist party to a British-French puppet and then later a CIA puppet before it evolved to what it is today.

This is why I find your neat black and white definitions of who is a colonialist or imperialist absurd. The fact is anyone could be described as either. Its like describing oneself as moderate or left wing or right wing. Its meaningless. Such words necessarily take on the subjective bias of the person throwing them out as to what they mean.

To me there is but only one kind of political ideologist, and that is an opportunist. I subscribe to the Oleg Bachian belief that we all know what politics is-its only the amount you have to pay one that is in question.

Interesting little rant there. An interpretation of facts that I don't necessarily agree with.

Don't disagree that realpolitik is opportunistic - this is no great revelation. To claim that that is the only kind political ideology is nonsensical.

The definitions of colonialist, imperialist, left wing and right wing are rather precise and appropriate useage of them provide the reader/listener with clear information.

I think that perhaps you take umbrage at the fact that for propaganda purposes terms are misused or twisted and hence meaningless in both content and context. (fox news are masters at this) Okay, I can see that, but I always try to use words accurately and contextually.

"Colonialism is the establishment, maintenance, acquisition and expansion of colonies in one territory by people from another territory. Colonialism is a process whereby sovereignty over the colony is claimed by the metropole and the social structure, government, and economics of the colony are changed by colonists - people from the metropole. Colonialism is a set of unequal relationships: between the metropole and the colony, and between the colonists and the indigenous population."

"Imperialism, n.

1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government."

[bloodyminded]

The definitions of colonialist, imperialist, left wing and right wing are rather precise and appropriate useage of them provide the reader/listener with clear information.

I think that perhaps you take umbrage at the fact that for propaganda purposes terms are misused or twisted and hence meaningless in both content and context. (fox news are masters at this) Okay, I can see that, but I always try to use words accurately and contextually.

Exactly so. I can sympathize with Rue's frustration--hell, I didn't know I was a "communist" (much less a "Stalinist") until I entered the internet debating arena.

But this doesn't mean various terms aren't useful. As you say, they need only be used correctly, and with a willingness to concede nuance, in which case they can be sometimes useful indeed.

Edited February 10, 2011 by bloodyminded

[JB Globe]

So what you're saying is that I should be as concerned about religious parties in Egypt as I am religious parties in Israel, yes?

That in both countries they are pushing the state to pursue an irrational and confrontational foreign policy?

Edited February 11, 2011 by JB Globe

[Rue]

Exactly so. I can sympathize with Rue's frustration--hell, I didn't know I was a "communist" (much less a "Stalinist") until I entered the internet debating arena.

But this doesn't mean various terms aren't useful. As you say, they need only be used correctly, and with a willingness to concede nuance, in which case they can be sometimes useful indeed.

Lol well to make sure you are a commie you must verify the following. If you answer yes to more than 2 you are a commie;

1-Do you have facial hair or are unshaven? (man or woman the test holds equally as valid)

2- Do you own or have you ever worn a beret?

3-Have you ever used the word Mao, Che, brother Fidel, comrade, or Yankee in a sentence?

4-Have you or anyone in your family voted for the NDP or attempted to justify anything Olivia Chow or Jack Layton or any union leader said?

5-Were you upset over the recent election outcome for Mayor in Toronto?

6-Have you ever used these references in a sentence, "Zionism is racism", "oppressor", "expansionist", "reactionary", "neo" (unless you were discussing the Matrix movies);

7-think Oleg Bach is the name of a musician or a counter revolutionary;

8-work for the Chinese government.

Edited February 12, 2011 by Rue

[Rue]

So what you're saying is that I should be as concerned about religious parties in Egypt as I am religious parties in Israel, yes?

That in both countries they are pushing the state to pursue an irrational and confrontational foreign policy?

I am. Whether its Shas in Israel or Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, they both have men with beards

and extreme views not just as to external but internal policies.

However the differentation I would make is Israel has existing institutions, i.e., an independent judiciary, independent

popularily elected Knesset, free press, hundreds of human rights organizations, that provide a checks and balances

for any extremists. In Egypt such apperati do not exist or play the role they do in Israel and so the likelihood of extremists being able to gain power and influence state policy is far greater than in Israel with Shas or Lieberman or a portion of Jewish settlers on

the West Bank who are extremely intolerant and undemocratic in tendencies and whose views are countered and contained

by popular expression.

I would say ironically there is a similar role played by both countries' militaries at this point. They are both seen as the tristed caretakers of their respective countries in times of crisis.

Edited February 12, 2011 by Rue

[GWiz]

Worst thread award contest going on?

This ones got my vote...

[DogOnPorch]

Spot on,sir!!!

Especially the part about the NAZI/Fscist influence on Islamic fundementalists...And,the NAZI/Fascistic leanings of the Pan-Arab Ba'Athists...

I and DogonPorch salute you!!!!

Sadly,there is no democratic option in Egypt once the Fascit thug Mubarak is gone...This is the obvious reason why El Baradei is being parachuted in as some sort of democratic "white night"...

Yeah...Baradei makes for good warm fuzzy feelings on our news casts. But, you and I seem to understand what the Muslim Brotherhood roots, in fact, are. Qutb, al-Banna, Qassam, Hajj Amin Al-Husseini, et al. All poster boys for the modern day Anwar al-Awlakis out there.

Meanwhile...this might provide a chuckle...and the MB are really jolly fellows @ heart...

[bloodyminded]

Lol well to make sure you are a commie you must verify the following. If you answer yes to more than 2 you are a commie;

1-Do you have facial hair or are unshaven? (man or woman the test holds equally as valid)

It depends on the day. Is laziness communist?

2- Do you own or have you ever worn a beret?

No...but you might ask some Canadian soldiers. Fucking pinkos.

3-Have you ever used the word Mao, Che, brother Fidel, comrade, or Yankee in a sentence?

No doubt, yes. Except for "brother Fidel."

4-Have you or anyone in your family voted for the NDP or attempted to justify anything Olivia Chow or Jack Layton or any union leader said?

Definitely.

5-Were you upset over the recent election outcome for Mayor in Toronto?

no, I didn't care. We've got our own little frightened reactionary mayor right here in Fredericton! Though I admit he's mellowed a lot in recent years.

6-Have you ever used these references in a sentence, "Zionism is racism", "oppressor", "expansionist", "reactionary", "neo" (unless you were discussing the Matrix movies);

The first one, absolutely not. The others, sure.

Oh, but there's only one Matrix movie. The second and third don't count.

7-think Oleg Bach is the name of a musician or a counter revolutionary;

Oleg is one of a kind.

8-work for the Chinese government.

they don't seem quite as "communist" as they once did, do they? but no.

I like your questions, thanks.

Edited February 12, 2011 by bloodyminded