Re: The Truth About What The Palestinians REALLY Want

In <ZJudnT3BgZVGLqDanZ2dnUVZ_t6onZ2d@xxxxxxx> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kimmel@xxxxxxx> writes:

Well, yes - in his mind he's destroying the bad and replacing it with the
good. Which is exactly what the other people we discussed wanted to do.

No, it isn't. Gandhi and King were not about destroying the entire society,
bin Laden is. Your comparison is completely wrong.

I'm not making a comparison, I'm making a distinction. I'm saying if Al
Sharpton is an extremist (and I think he is) then surely that word is way
too mild to describe Bin Laden. You want to call Bin Laden an extremist,
so you seem to be inventing a definition for it that includes destroying
entire societies, but I don't know what you're basing that on.


No, I've been very clear about this, and I don't know why you keep trying to
make things confusing. Gandhi and King were not trying to destroying
Britain or America. Bin Laden *is*. He doesn't want to simply make some
reforms. He wants to destroy everything we are and replace it with
something entirely different.
What are you having trouble with here?

I'm having trouble with the word "extremist," which you said earlier is
the appropriate term to describe Bin Laden. I'm saying there's no
equivalence between Gandhi and Bin Laden, but both could fairly be
described within their own contexts with the word "extremist." You seem to
be saying no, we can't call Gandhi an extremist because he didn't try to
destroy an entire society. To which I'd say well yes, actually he did, but
it's irrelevant as a willingness to destroy a society has never been part
of the definition of the word "extremist."


As opposed to, say, terrorism -- I can imagine a circumstance where
terrorism might be an appopriate response to certain types of repression.
However, it would still be terrorism, even if in service of a cause I
support.

Then you are coming up with your own definition of "terrorism." This is why
this discussion is going nowhere. I'm using words as they are defined and
you are using them through some secret meaning which I can only guess at.

No, terrorism is a tactic - it's intentionally targeting civilians in
order to bring about a political change by terrorising the populace into
going along with your demands. Whether or not it's inherently wrong
depends on what you're trying to achieve, doesn't it? If there was a
German resistance during WWII, would it have been wrong for them to engage
in terrorism? It's not so clear cut, is it?

How are YOU defining the word? You haven't offered a single definition of
any term yet -- you haven't defined terrorism, fascism, or extremism.
You've just objected to mine. So, Dan, how do you define those terms?

he's talking about the religion of the state. Nationalism as a religion.
He's saying that the unity of the state, serving the state, that's your
spiritual duty - that is the only religion.

And yet he did nothing to wipe out the Church, which suggests you've
misunderstood him.

I don't think so.

How does it prove any such thing?

Because Communism and Fascism are NOT the same thing. They are competely
different economic systems.

I didn't say they were the same thing. You're confusing the means and the
ends. Communists, Fascists, and your so-called "Islamic extremists" are
all using VERY similar if not identical means to achieve different ends.
Those means are:
- authoritarian governments
- deriving power from some religious or pseudo-religious source (divine
right, economic destiny, whatever)
- driven (at least initially) by the masses

I disagree. Communism explicitly replaced religion with the state. Fascism
(per Mussolin's doc) seems to do the same thing. However the Communists
didn't seem to talk about their state in religious terms, Fascism, or at
least Mussolini, explicitly did.

You need to stop going to Wikipedia and learn something about what actually
occurred in Italy under Mussolini.

Then you wouldn't trip yourself up like this and we could get back to
addressing how to deal with Islamic extremism instead of pretending its some
form of fascism.

The only way to deal with "Islamic extremism" as such is to destroy the
Islamic religion, or at least force them to change their religion such
that it's something I like better. Is that your intent?

OTOH, we can deal with Islamofascism by converting the political structure
- the problem isn't that they're Islamic, but that they want to force
Islam on others.

Proof by assertion again? Did you read the document?

Feel free to show that religion was in any way suppressed in fascist Italy
in the way it was in the communist Soviet Union. I don't care how you're
misreading some "document" you found on Wikipedia. I'm focusing on facts.
And the state did NOT supplant religion in fascist Italy. And the state
does not supplant religion in Islamic nations.

<sigh> You're confusing a political philosophy with an actual
implementation. Are you one of those people who insists that Communism
woudl actually work, the only problem is that Stalin perverted it?

I'm talking about the POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY of fascism, not what actually
happened in Italy. It's a broader term than that.

I think that's a different point. Once again when I'm talking about
religion here I don't mean Catholicism. Mussolini doesn't seem to even
mention Catholicism in his manifesto. The way he then actually implemented
Fascism, given that his people were ardent Christians at least initially,
is a practical political matter, it doesn't really tell us what a Fascist
state would have looked like had it survived another 50 years or so.

Now you not only claim to read Mussolini's mind but to predict the future of
alternate historical timelines. Is it really THAT hard to admit you're
wrong?

Wrong about what? You're just saying "you're wrong" without bringing any
actual arguments into it. The fact that Mussolini didn't suppress the
church doesn't mean anything. His fascism was a nationalistic one - there
are other types of fascism, Dan. Some say that nazism was a racial
fascism. You can also have religious fascisms.

In an Islamic state (with the possible exception of Iran, which presents a
semi-democratic front) what's the difference between the state and the
religion?

Who calls the shots? The religious leaders or the political ones? That's
the fight going on in places like Egypt and Jordan and the Palestinian
territories, where the Islamic extremists want control over the government,
and -- except in Gaza -- the government has fended them off so far. In
places like Iran and Saudi Arabia, it's clear that it's the religious
leaders who are in charge.

Right, I agree -- but doesn't this support my point and undermine yours?
It's not a religion and a state, it's a religious state. Which isn't
simply "extremism" it's something else. I think "fascism" is an
appropriate term for it. I accept that rational people might disagree -
what I'm annoyed about is your argument by mere assertion: "It's clear!
Don't you see it's clear? Why don't you understand that it's clear!" It's
NOT clear.

For that matter, what would be the difference in a halachic state?

Why you bringing up this red herring? We see what happens in Israel when
religious leaders are given control over lifecycle events. In that area
Israel is more like a theocracy than a democracy.

Yes, and maybe "Islamotheocrat" would be better, but hey, take Iran, it's
clearly a theocracy but I don't think it's fascistic. So the term's
broader than that.

--s
--

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Truth About What The Palestinians REALLY Want
    ... Fascism is a particularly philosophy of governing. ... "fascism" ought not be applied to the Islamic extremists. ... state is to advance their *religion*, ... thus not all Muslims are Fascists. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: The Truth About What The Palestinians REALLY Want
    ... I'm saying if Al ... any term yet -- you haven't defined terrorism, fascism, or extremism. ... REPLACING religion with the state as opposed to making religion ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: The Truth About What The Palestinians REALLY Want
    ... "fascism" ought not be applied to the Islamic extremists. ... I think Communism is a specific type of Fascism. ... with "the people," while in Fascism it's this state religion. ... but "beliefsystem-Fascism" is external to it. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: The Truth About What The Palestinians REALLY Want
    ... with an Islamic state. ... should all be able to agree on whether it's extremism even if we disagree ... It's saying religion *serves* the state. ... with "the people," while in Fascism it's this state religion. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: The Truth About What The Palestinians REALLY Want
    ... because he wanted to destroy the prior Italian state? ... "fascism" ought not be applied to the Islamic extremists. ... It's saying religion *serves* the state. ... I think Communism is a specific type of Fascism. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)