World War III

[Jim]

You don't need to. By saying we're fighting against Islamic fascists you give them all the ammunition they need to make it a religious struggle.

 

Are they incapable of understanding that the phrase "Islamic Fascists" refers to a subset of Islam? I'm sorry but I think that is patronizing towards Muslims. I also reject the idea that we need to censor ourselves because a fascist government might distort what we say. They are going to do that anyway and we'll never get anywhere unless we engage in clear, open and free speech.

 

If there was an equivalent group of Christians in America who were killing Muslims in the name of Christ, they would be called Christian Terrorists. If Christians in this country instituted a theocracy, punished dissent with pain of torture and death and obliterated the right to meaningful elections, we would call them Christian Fascists. Not long ago we had a thread talking about the dangers of the "Christian Right" and I don't recall a bunch of objections.

 

Yet, we hesitate to use correct terminology for Islamic groups who engage in terror or who hold power in fascist governments? If we are afraid to even speak the truth, we truly have no chance.

 

As Santorum stated:

 

There is a bigger problem: our fear of speaking clearly, publicly, and consistently about the enemy. It is unfashionable in some quarters to speak about the Islamo fascists, because of the misguided cultural reflex that condemns anyone who speaks critically about others' practices or beliefs. Therefore, we can’t say or do anything that might offend Muslims.

 

But that's backwards. The real offense to Muslims is to remain silent about an ideology that produces the systemic murder of innocents. Mostly, Muslim innocents. They are the first victims of Islamic fascism, and the enemy directly targets them, as we have heard once again in the most recent audiotape from Osama bin Laden.

 

Those who refuse to criticize Islamic fascism undermine the cause of freedom of religion because if the Islamic fascists win this war, no other religion will be permitted to flourish.

 

Paradoxically, when we refuse to criticize anybody, we end up patronizing everyone, which is offensive to everyone and self-defeating.

 

It makes a mockery of freedom of speech, and traps us in the discredited nonsense of moral equivalence. This war is not between two morally equivalent sides; it's a war between brutal totalitarian fascism and freedom.

 

Our freedom, not just freedom for Iraqis and Afghans. We are the fascists’ prime target, and they intend to impose a brutal tyranny on those of us who survive their onslaught.

Not at all. I feel we just need to stay away from what our opponents really want, which is to make this Jihad to unite all of Islam against us. Without that, you have millions of very reasonable people (who just happen to be of the Islamic faith) who would be able to decry fascism if it is separated from their religion.

 

So you agree that there is this confluence of factors but think we need to censor ourselves from making the historical reference because... well why? Is it okay to at least think these things?

 

I agree that the President should be careful in his word choice but I don't see anything wrong with a public discussion occurring which is no holds barred. If Muslims don’t like it, then they can help us to clean the house of Islam.

 

 

Agreed, which is why I hate the WWIII reference. It just brings in unnecessary fear at a time when we need to be very smart about who and why we fight.

 

It brings unnecessary fear IF it is inaccurate. If it is accurate, it brings necessary focus although no one is talking about mounting invasions, calling a draft, etc. Nothing either of these speakers said suggests we should be stupid in the way we fight the “war.”

[john5746]

So you agree that there is this confluence of factors but think we need to censor ourselves from making the historical reference because... well why? Is it okay to at least think these things?

 

I agree that the President should be careful in his word choice but I don't see anything wrong with a public discussion occurring which is no holds barred. If Muslims don’t like it' date=' then they can help us to clean the house of Islam.

[/quote']

 

I see both sides on this. I compare it to racism in America. If you hear black people complaining everyday about White racists, you might start to dislike it after awhile or suspect they don't like all whites. On the other hand, if there is a murder and the person/group happens to be white and they are targeting blacks, then that should be discussed.

[KLB]

As some Internet posting CNN just referenced on TV it can't be WWIII because France hasn't surrendered yet.

[ecoli]

It was a well written post but the argument that the "ONLY way to defeat Islamic terrorism is for Islamic terrorism to become hated IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD' date=' which means THEY have to have . . . sympathy for us . . ." seems a bit naive. How, exactly, do we go about gaining this sympathy in such a short time frame? If we were to abandon Israel, withdraw from Iraq and Saudi Arabia and stone Britney Spears to death (and the leering Bob Dole for good measure), I'm not sure that would appease them.

 

Certainly the Islamic fascists would not accept these appeasement measures because to do so would deprive them of power.[/quote']

 

 

Well, the stoning of Britany Spears would appease me, so you can go ahead on that one. As for the rest, it's a sore subject.

 

We certainly don't want the innocent/ undecided citizens of the middle east to think badly of us, but on the other hand, we can't let this sensitivity hamper what may need to be done.

 

It's a lose/lose situation. We attack and kill some innocent bystanders and the world hates us, and we get more terrorists. But, if we do nothing, then we let them pick us off, one by one, and they wind up winning.

 

Perhaps there is a happy medium where we can try and remove terrorists, but let the innocent civilians take responsibility for their actions, and deal with them if they turn out to be not so innocent.

[Phi for All]

So you agree that there is this confluence of factors but think we need to censor ourselves from making the historical reference because... well why? Is it okay to at least think these things?

 

I agree that the President should be careful in his word choice but I don't see anything wrong with a public discussion occurring which is no holds barred. If Muslims don’t like it' date=' then they can help us to clean the house of Islam.[/quote']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'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.

[ecoli]

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.

 

But that's just the problem isn't it? If we attack the fascists and terrorists, the Islamic extremists will cry out at the big bad west attacking Islam. A strawman that could be very effecting in turning public opinion against us.

[Phi for All]

But that's just the problem isn't it? If we attack the fascists and terrorists, the Islamic extremists will cry out at the big bad west attacking Islam. A strawman that could be very effecting in turning public opinion against us.

There's no doubt they will be saying that, but I think we can avoid being quoted in the worldwide press as aiming ourselves or a World War at "Islamic extremists". If we widen the scope beyond terrorists, won't defending ourselves against fascist elements be enough? Why go out of our way to bring an entire major religion against us? In the words of Murdoch (William Shatner) from Airplane II, "That's exactly what they'll be expecting us to do!"

[Jim]

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.

[Jim]

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.

[walrusman]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

[Jim]

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.

[bob000555]

I'm not scared of this "World War." The "axis" is simply too weak. Iran, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and North Korea? Israel could make a parking lot out of all of them all by themselves

Before we invaded Iraq we felt the same way, that we would simply crush them several years later we are still fighting, our solders are still dieing.

 

One can not underestimate the power of a determined resistance. Not only that but if you include North Korea weach as the ability to launch nucks at California in that “Axis” you start looking at Nuclear Holocaust. Also a war in the aria would only pull the hole Arab world into the conflict. Not only that but in this time of political division in the US it is questionable whether or not the whole nation would be behind the war effort as it was in world war 2 or 1.