"Mixed Reaction as Pope Expresses Regret..."

[Andrew]

Source: Yahoo!

VATICAN CITY - Pope Benedict XVI said Sunday that he is "deeply sorry" his remarks on Islam and violence offended Muslims, but the unusual expression of papal regret drew a mixed reaction from Islamic leaders as the Vatican worried about a backlash of violence.

Some Muslim leaders accepted the statement. Others said it wasn't enough, but urged Muslims to avoid violence after attacks on churches in Palestinian areas and the slaying of a nun in Somalia.

Benedict said he regretted causing offense with his speech last week in Germany, particularly his quoting of a medieval text that characterized some of the teachings of Islam's founder as "evil and inhuman" and referred to spreading Islam "by the sword."

He said those words did not reflect his own opinions.

"I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect," the pope said during his weekly Sunday appearance before pilgrims.

It was an unusual step for a leader of the Roman Catholic Church. Benedict's predecessor, Pope John Paul II, issued a number of apologies during his papacy, but they dealt with abuses and other missteps by the church in the past rather than errors on his own part.

Vatican officials had earlier sought to placate spreading Muslim anger by saying Benedict held Islam in high esteem and stressed that the central thrust of his speech was to condemn the use of any religious motivation for violence, whatever the religion.

While Benedict expressed regret his speech caused hurt, he did not retract what he said or say he was sorry he uttered what proved to be explosive words.

Anger was still intense in Muslim lands...[continued (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060918/ap_on_re_eu/pope_muslims)]


Ya know... it'd be great if Muslims became this outraged everytime a suicide bomber killed themselves to the detriment of others in the name of Allah.

[OTH man]

Ya know... it'd be great if Muslims became this outraged everytime a suicide bomber killed themselves to the detriment of others in the name of Allah.
couldnt agree more

they can get mad at people remarks on their violence (like the comic strip, ect.) but they didnt seem outraged after 9/11? what the hell man?

[XDDD]

Even if I do think that muslims should be more worried about violent/terrorist acts commited in the name of Allah, I can understand why many muslims are offended by the pope's speech.

He should have know better than to quote a text saying Muhammad only brought evil to this world. You don't quote something unless you agree with it somehow. Either that, or you refute it and/or clarify it.

I'm pretty sure the pope speeches are revised over and over. It's impossible that nobody realised statements like that could offend other people.

[Webeh]

Ya know... it'd be great if Muslims became this outraged everytime a suicide bomber killed themselves to the detriment of others in the name of Allah.

Actually many Muslims are indeed outraged by this. The reason why we don't notice this because those Muslims don't resort to violence to get their message across. Hence they're ignored, which is unfortunate.

As for Muslims participating in violence, I bet those are the very same people who blow themselves up. I think it's really sad that the media likes to use mostly violent examples to identify Muslims. I know a few Muslims and they're among the nicest people I've ever met.

[Ol'blueyes]

it was a quote, not his own words. it's ridiculous.

[HappyHamster]

it was a quote, not his own words. it's ridiculous.

He still chose to quote it though. He didn't have to and he did, hence implying that he agreed with it. "I said it but it doesn't reflect my opnion." What does that mean anyway? How often do people put a quote in a speech to convey something they don't believe in? "Psyche!"

[OCvirgin]

I can understand why Muslims got mad. If someone said something blasphemic about Christ, I'm sure Christians would cause just as much of an uproar. Everyone has a right to feel protective over their beliefs/religion. Thing is most the terrorism that is taking place is by people following Islam, and eventhough it maybe typecasting those Muslims and Islam (no religion says innocents shud die for a religious purpose), I cant blame people putting the blame on the religion or community as a whole. Those who do terrorism arent against an individual person, they're against 'America and Americans' or British... they are genralising too.

Personally i dnt think the pope is at a status where he would say something without thinking or being advised about it. He knew what he was saying, but i doubt he expected things to get so negative...

[tommygirl887]

Actually many Muslims are indeed outraged by this. The reason why we don't notice this because those Muslims don't resort to violence to get their message across. Hence they're ignored, which is unfortunate.


Pretty much what I was going to say. As a Muslim myself, I'm always outraged and it pisses me off to no end that terrorists think what they're doing is right, and that they do it in the name of God. Almost any non-extremist Muslim will tell you the same thing. It's just that its never seen in the media.

[Sonni]

We talked about this in Religious ed. class... I think that the pope didn't have to say that quote, the speech could very much live without the quote too. He should've known that some muslims are easily offended by stuff like that and that they're going to answer with terror. Of course this is just a little minority of all muslims, but unfortunately they are the ones you hear about...

[Kari]

Of course the reactions are pretty stupid and exaggerated.
But and there is a huge but. He is the pope, he does have a responsiblity. He knows that every single word he says can and will be understood wrongly, especially if he makes it so easy for them to pick something out.
It was a stupid quote, it was used in a way that should have been clear, but its a well known fact that there are some people out there who tend to overreact and pervert things (---> caricature debate)

[OCvirgin]

Of course the reactions are pretty stupid and exaggerated.
But and there is a huge but. He is the pope, he does have a responsiblity. He knows that every single word he says can and will be understood wrongly, especially if he makes it so easy for them to pick something out

My point exactly. He is a well known and important figure. He knows everything he says and does will be scrutinised. Personally I dnt think 'he didnt think about what he said' He knew, or at least those writing the speech knew exactly what was being said... no-one is that dumb not to think of the consequences.

[Heather]

First of all, it was a speech at a university among intellectuals. He wasnt coining the phrase as if it were his own.

Secondly, fanatic Muslims have no problem with political cartoons mocking the Jews and Christians, or eradicating Israel altogether. So their outrage at this is misplaced, not to mention hypocritical.

The hypocricy of their words and actions seriously makes my blood boil. They have no problem beheading people, murdering innocent women and children, but say anything (even taken out of context) about their God, and its war.

I have three words for them. Get a life.

As for the Pope's words...originally, I agreed with some of the previous posts. He should have been more careful. But then I started thinking. These people want to eradicate our way of life. And free speech is among that. Are we to alter our every thought, our every word, in fear that it might offend them? If we do that, then they have already won.

And I for one, will not change the way I think because of these fanatics.

[Kari]

It's not the question how the reactions of the fanatics were.
They are to be condemned and they are to be condemned more than anything the pope says.
Yes, those reactions are hypocritical, yes they are unnecessary, yes those people are not to change your whole way of thinking for them.

They are fanatics and they are representing their religion in a way that terribly distorts everything it stands for.

But that doesnt change the fact that the Pope acted irresponsibly. He brings himself and a lot of other people to danger with this. That the speech was held between intelectuals didnt prevent that it was shown on TV everywhere in the world. And that something like this was going to be misunderstood was predetermined.

Plus, was this comaprism to the 15th century (or was it 14th?) really so smart?

[XDDD]

Plus, was this comaprism to the 15th century (or was it 14th?) really so smart?

:lol: LMAO :lol:

[Andrew]

The hypocricy of their words and actions seriously makes my blood boil. They have no problem beheading people, murdering innocent women and children, but say anything (even taken out of context) about their God, and its war.

That's the part that gets me. It's like "WHAT? You're trying to imply we're violent? Well, to prove you wrong, we'll riot and start killing people."

Those who are that vehemently opposed to it seem to be doing a good job of proving it right.

[OTH man]

That's the part that gets me. It's like "WHAT? You're trying to imply we're violent? Well, to prove you wrong, we'll riot and start killing people."

Those who are that vehemently opposed to it seem to be doing a good job of proving it right.
I couldnt agree more, i mean not all Muslims are violent, but thoes who are, really need to think before they act next time because im really getting sick of all the riots they start, for everything. Be offended if you want, but dont act violent, and give thoes who are making you mad in the first place, more material to work on

[Andrew]

You know, on a second thought, I don't think it's so much as "the quote makes implications" as it is "the quote is directed towards them."

[OCvirgin]

Exactly... I heard an interview with some muslims, and they said if people dont stop implicating them in terrorism, they will resort to replying in 'a violent manner'... An eye for an eye? No, that caused war. And how can we not implicate them if they take responsibility for terrorist acts??

Sure not all muslims believe in that way, but neither did all Americans or British or any other innocents do nething against them but they still got killed in these terrorist activities.... Collateral damage on both sides is working out very costly :nohope:

[Andrew]

I heard an interview with some muslims, and they said if people dont stop implicating them in terrorism, they will resort to replying in 'a violent manner'...

Well, it really isn't as simple as that. Those extremists who are killing themselves/others are doing so in the name of Allah.

And yes I agree, not all Muslims resort to violence... but how many ways can one interpret "spread the word, even by sword"?

[OCvirgin]

Nothing is simple, but it is a fact. What u say is true... those few terrorists are giving a bad name to all. What's the saying... 'One rotten apple...'

It's always the innocent bystanders who lose in the struggle for power :(

[Kari]

I just don't get how all of that - and with all of that I do absolutely agree - makes it any more necessary what the Pope said.

It's plain hypocrisy, it's paradox, it's ununderstandable.
But is there any need to provoke in this way, just because they are doing it, too. If there is any way of fighting terror, this is not it. This is actually what makes normal people start to sympathize with fanatics and maybe become fanatics themselves.

Don't get me wrong, it's not like I am saying the Pope is the antichrist (although he looks kind of evil) and is too blame for all this. Still I think, he should have thought better of the consequences of his words.

[Andrew]

I dunno... I guess just like all of life's problems, it's a dual-blame.

The Pope, even though he was just reciting a quote, should've used better judgement considering how sensitive things are in our modern times.

The enraged (extremist) Muslims, even though are rightly so to be offended by the quote, shouldn't be using violence as a means of absolution.

On the other hand...

The Pope has the right to speak his mind and shouldn't have to tone down anything just to appease the extremists.

And the EEMs should realize it was a slanderous quote, not a "proclaimation of his slanderous disposition."



So... umm... " :nono: to you both"

[Faith]

I don't think the Pope should have attacked Islam, (the whole 'he was just quoting someone else is the HUGEST loophole I have ever heard in my life!) This is what worries me - if people keep tarring Islam with the same brush, how long until the non-violent Muslims that are not terrorists think, 'bollocks to it, we're getting accused of it, might as well do it."

But darad1o, you speak sense

[Metaphysics]

I dunno where to begin on this....

Personally I think this whole kerfuffle cannot get anymore hilriously stupid and fallicious :haha: (religion is under my book highly fallicious)


Firstly, both sides are the clowns I mean, first off the Pope is a catholic and is the leader of the denomination catholism. That sect is sect of christianity, one of the many segements/beliefs of christianty and really he isn't speaking for all the christians accross the world (protestants, church of england, mormans, jehovahs etc).

......Also, no differently these muslim fundamentalists who claim that it's thier devine right to protect the people of islam if under threat, carry out sucide bombings, wanting western countries like the UK to be under sharia law ...and yet they are saying they are speaking for the people of islamic world when they aren't.

Another point is that if the muslims were to say blasephamus (sp? lol) things to christianty, the christians won't be as offended. This is cos over the last few hundred years they have been the vicitm of it and have become quite used to it (watch life of brian!)...where as muslims, they havn't exactly experienced any form of mass critcism and blasephemy on the level that the christians have so OF COURSE the muslims will get into an up roar (what happended if the film was made called the life of mohammed huh? They would go CRAZY) The muslims have yet to be made 'desensitized' from critcism and blasephemy.

Personally it was stupid of the pope to even say that he should at least have basic common sense that hey, they are gonna get offended...but also look at the events from the past whereby there has been a violent uproar about portral of mohammed cartoon with a bomb on it's head. But at the same time, I really think some of the muslims need to get a ****ing life as well and not get so offended by even the slightest criticism cos they just get so rowdy like as if thier imam/leader has been shot. It's just in this reality it wasn't sensible to say it to them, mainly cos levels of sensitivty to religious critcism between those 2 is different.

Anyways, I think religion is fallicious in so many ways, the pope said that muslims are violent as he interpreted from the koran and same to how these muslim fundamentlists interpret thier koran saying they'll get a place in god damn heaven by blowing themselves up. I mean, christianity has denominations for pete's sake that have thier own view of christianty and even thier own version of the bible and interpet for themselves and how there are shia and sunni muslims. The main problem here is subjective perception and interpretation of thier holy book and because of that, you can't get no universally objective answer or fact cos of the fact that humans have thier subjective perception/interpretation. What's even more fallicious about religion is that both the pope and these islamic fundmentalists interpret from thier own heads and make thier perception from a subjective one and make it into an objective one...just like getting an opinion and turning it to a fact just like how the pope and these freaking terrorists do it (and then say they are speaking for the people, how f'ed can it get?!)

Anyways the pope said he's sorry and I think the muslims should really get a life and move on end of!

[JohnnyTooBad]

Whenever things like this happen now, I just get kinda happy, cuz I know the Daily Show will totally have some fun with it




J

[Heather]

I know this doesnt really relate to the pope...but its something that really made me think, and sort of goes inline with what Gem said.

The other day the President of Pakistan (who is an ally) was being interviewed on Hannity & Colmes, by both Sean and Alan. At one point he talked about how the world calls these monsters "Islamic terrorists". And he posed the question, "Why not just call them terrorists?" Which is completely true. His point, was that by calling them Islamic, we are isolating much of the Islamic world, even though we dont blame the majority of the religion, but those who hijacked it.

I hope that made sense. :lol:

[Webeh]

^ I think this a highly unfortunately label. Somehow, a lot of people have learned to equate terrorism with Islam in their heads. That is a very unfair association considering that not all muslims are terrorists and not all terrorists are muslims. *sigh...

[Metaphysics]

I know this doesnt really relate to the pope...but its something that really made me think, and sort of goes inline with what Gem said.

The other day the President of Pakistan (who is an ally) was being interviewed on Hannity & Colmes, by both Sean and Alan. At one point he talked about how the world calls these monsters "Islamic terrorists". And he posed the question, "Why not just call them terrorists?" Which is completely true. His point, was that by calling them Islamic, we are isolating much of the Islamic world, even though we dont blame the majority of the religion, but those who hijacked it.

I hope that made sense. :lol:


President Musharaff is abit of an idiot. They were muslim terrorists and that's the label we are going give them cos that's who they were who carried out the attacks. Not all muslims are terrorists but the point this idiot of a president is making is just stupid. Look at the IRA that carried out attacks on the UK, they were called Irish terrorists cos they were Irish but we had the common sense within our minds that the innocent Irish people weren't all terrorists just cos we used that label. He thinks the western world are plain ignorant and would label everyone within the islamic world a terrorist cos we've used the label 'islamic terrorists' when it's label for terrorists, not for the innocent people. I think he fails to understand that we know the difference between a 'muslim terroist' and an 'innocent muslim'.

Anyways, if those islamic terrorists hadnt carried out those attacks then the muslims woudn't have felt so isolated, but just to call them a terrorist with out giving a specfic descriptive background/ethnicity of it, then we can all assume that everyone, every race has the potential of being a terrorist and is a terrorist.


Final note: I advise everyone not to even watch Hannity and Combs, or anything to do with Hannity. He's a peice of right-wing neo con propagated scum. He spins the flaws of the republican party into achievements and blames the flaws of the republicans on the democrats. This c*nt demonises democrats where it's getting to a point where he is one hell of a fascist. You may not see it but I know deep down he is.

[JohnnyTooBad]

Yeah, when they carry out all their terror acts in the NAME OF ISLAM... talking all about ISLAM all the time... we've got to think about this in terms of why THEY are combining Islam and terror. I love Islam... I hate terror. I am not the one combining the two.

[JohnnyTooBad]

Also, did anybody see Pervez on the Daily Show? I missed it, how was it?

[Leyton Forever]

I have one issue with the outrage by extremeists and that is, do people really expect The Pope...head of the Catholic church to be pro-any other religion in any speech he gives. He said it, yes it was poor judgement but what ever happened to freedom of speech. And he quoted 'spread the word, even by the sword', hypocritical because well...the crusades anyone, Christians have resorted to violence too.

However, the extremeist muslims could have reacted in a better way rather than 'we'll prove you wrong by massacring nuns and burning down churches'. That hardly helps their case.

In my humble opinion, get over it, it's done, can't be changed, he apologised, move on...

[Heather]

Final note: I advise everyone not to even watch Hannity and Combs, or anything to do with Hannity. He's a peice of right-wing neo con propagated scum. He spins the flaws of the republican party into achievements and blames the flaws of the republicans on the democrats. This c*nt demonises democrats where it's getting to a point where he is one hell of a fascist. You may not see it but I know deep down he is.
Excuse me. Step back, right now.

There are alot of posters in this forum who like Sean Hannity. And if I can refrain from bashing Al Franken, you can keep your opinions about Sean to yourself, or at least phrase them more diplomatically. He is not a neo-Nazi, he's a conservative. And as someone who is a Conservative, I will tell you the name calling is really tiring not to mention juvenile.

Why dont you try debating instead, its much healthier. And by the way, just because you know something "deep down" doesnt make it a fact. It makes it your opinion.

[Metaphysics]

Excuse me. Step back, right now.

There are alot of posters in this forum who like Sean Hannity. And if I can refrain from bashing Al Franken, you can keep your opinions about Sean to yourself, or at least phrase them more diplomatically. He is not a neo-Nazi, he's a conservative. And as someone who is a Conservative, I will tell you the name calling is really tiring not to mention juvenile.

Why dont you try debating instead, its much healthier. And by the way, just because you know something "deep down" doesnt make it a fact. It makes it your opinion.




I did say 'I advise' people not to watch that show, so really it's the person choice to take my advice, I didn't say 'I don't want people watching this', that has a real commanding tone to it and really, I never implied it in that manner...at the end of the day, it's that persons choice, I am just voicing my opinion.


I know I said this -->

"You may not see it but I know deep down he is"

Seriously, I wasn't implying that as fact, what I feel and know deep down inside is only got to do with me, no-one else. It's a subjective statement.

I never said Sean Hannity was a neo nazi, I said he was 'neo con right wing scum', and the key words: neo con and right wing are synonyms of the word conservative, not neo nazi, I know he isn't.

I think he is a fascist because fascism isn't just associated with mussolini, hitler and nazism, facism is a sick ideology associated and endoresed with..stalin, african dictatorships, pakistan, mexican governments, china......etc etc....
and what I think now also exists in america today and Sean Hannity's mind. That type is whereby government power isn't EXACTLY balanced is it, look at Bush, he says he is above the law, the constitution and can pass whatever law he want --> patriot act, terror bill, torture laws, wire tapping...I mean wtf?! Also these types of fascist brats are usually associated with large coperations with the agenda to control, show no other opposition other than themselves....--> taking over media stations and manufacturing consent ....called modern fascism aka corporatism.

Sean Hannity, despite being a supporter of the republican party, who I think are fascist.....he the follower, endorser, supporter of thier fascism hence making him a fascist as well. He has never in his LIFE ever actually admitted a mistake by them, he simply spins it into something good and blames it on democrats, I have listend to his radio shows, and this guy has no respect for liberals on the phone, he calls them nutcases, tells em to get off the phone, calling them jerks and cuts em of unless they are a republcan who calls him a great american, how pathetic is he! Look at how suddenly he said that Bill Clinton had 10 years to catch this guy and he failed, he suddenly blames this whole terrorist mumble jumble on Clinton and the Democrats saying they had the chance and all this time. Clinton admitted he failed and said he tried and got closer him than anyone else....When Bush was in power in January 2001, he had 8 MONTHS to prevent 9/11, what the hell was he doing at the time? Who actually started this war on terror and on Iraq?...... it was BUSH and now Sean Hannity in the last 2 weeks has suddenly foot the blame on Clinton cos we all know THE REPUBLICANS have failed on thier war on terror and suddenly blame it on the Democrats so they don't look like fools, just an amazing peice of spin that is :drunk: ....Also I think this is spined so that the repubs can win this years congressional elections and get the most votes by blaming democrats so thet don't win, you tell me who is DIPLOMATIC here in THIER phrasing?!

This war on terror has lasted for 5 years....it's the LONGEST war america has ever been on, even longer than ww2, vietnam, korea, somalia...

Most of all, I as a human being have a fundemental right to free speech....I can say what I want as long as it's sensible enough to understand (not like man hannity is a real ****ing asshole, god dammit what a ****o...) with anyone on wot I say about Hannity, I have right to express my opinions on Hannity. Your telling me to keep my sean opinion to myself...that means there are limitations on what opinions I can express here on what I can say and what I can't. It is ok for everyone else to view an opinion on ANYTHING they wish but I've suddenly been told to keep this one to myself? No honey, I could have told you keep your opinion to yourself you said about me giving my views on Hannity, but I am open minded enough to hear what everyone has to say cos I believe in true free speech. I don't dictate people on what they should say and what they shouldn't.

I also think that with you saying that I shoulda kept it to myself, you said that cos there are people here who like Hannity and by me giving my opinions in him would really cause 'offence' right?...cos really what is the point of freedom of speech when you can't have the freedom to offend.

Most of all, in free speech everyone has to respect thiers and other peoples rights to expressing whats on thier mind HOWEVER, they have the choice to disagree. You can disagree all you want but no-one tells another person to keep it to themselves cos they have the right to express it just as much as person B does, so yes you gotta respect the right there. Rights are respected, end of.

I am open to all bashing of any sort on any political anchormen and women and debate as to whether they are great or plane old idiots...even if they are my favourite ones. So bring it on if you want with what you think, I am very much quite interested.

Viva la Free Speech!

[Kay]

Anyways, if those islamic terrorists hadnt carried out those attacks then the muslims woudn't have felt so isolated, but just to call them a terrorist with out giving a specfic descriptive background/ethnicity of it, then we can all assume that everyone, every race has the potential of being a terrorist and is a terrorist.



& what? Are you saying that not everyone has the POTENTIAL to be a terrorist? Only muslims have that potential? The rest just cant be?

I agree with what the President of Pakistan said..why is there the need to say what religion its of? why cant they just be terrorists? In the end isnt it just that what they are? So what if they're doing it in the name of Allah or the name of a monkey?

[Kari]

It's bull that not everybody can be a terrorist. It's a matter of circumstances and education, social conditions etc, etc.

But, and there is a but, in my opinion, the islamic fundamentalist terrorism differs from all other kinds of terrorism the world has seen so far.
I don't say, so please don't get me wrong, that this has to do with the muslim religion as such. I don't think so.

Still I think, the contemporary terrorism we are talking about at the moment should in some way be labelled. The notion of a terrorist has undergone a great change since the beginning of the last century and was definitely changed in our mentality by 9/11.
There is a new kind of terrorism, that is completely nihilistic, organised, private and international.

Now, I think islamist, or muslim is probably the wrong lable. But I don't think it's generally wrong to single this terrorism out in some way.

[Metaphysics]

& what? Are you saying that not everyone has the POTENTIAL to be a terrorist? Only muslims have that potential? The rest just cant be?

I agree with what the President of Pakistan said..why is there the need to say what religion its of? why cant they just be terrorists? In the end isnt it just that what they are? So what if they're doing it in the name of Allah or the name of a monkey?



Amazing :rolleyes: Let me be clear here, the point that I made there was that a certain race/religion those terrorists are then you call them ....

.....[insert race name here] terrorist because that who they were and were saying in the name of and what they believe in. In this situation, Mohammed Atta and friends did in the name of thier religion and called themselves martyrs, when really terrorists representing the name of islam and allah hence called islamic terrorists


I said you can't just call them a terrorists without establishing an ethnic/religious background they are cos by calling them terrorists, any race or human being can be those terrorists cos it hasn't been established what thier background is, just the word 'terrorists' used, a really vauge description I mean...people can start assuming it could be indians, or chinese, christians, jews, japanese, anyone...and thereby reflects the idea here, without establishing that, anyone has the potential cos no-one is clear.

Furthermore, terrorists work in groups, that is a fact cos you have terrorist organisations that exist ranging from Christians to Muslims. Each individual is a terrorist, but since they all work in groups/organisations, they then become the plural 'terrorists' ....but each group has different views and values on what they are saying in the name of, then you give them label on what type they are cos what they believe are saying in the name of thier race/religion.


However, I have alot of sympathy for the innocent followers of Islam cos I know they aren't terrorists, there are brainwashed idiots out there who feel threatened by the western world, claiming there is a jihad when I don't see s*it all of a case for jihad, they are blowing up thier asses for no reason really.


Not just muslims are terrorists ok, there are christians, chinese, south american......any race has the potential.

And also I quote this statement as well

It's bull that not everybody can be a terrorist. It's a matter of circumstances and education, social conditions etc, etc.

[Heather]

So now Im a fascist because Im a Conservative, and dont fall in line with the liberal talking points? Thats nice, really.

And while you may be open to any kind of bashing, that is irrelevant, it is againts FB rules, pure and simple.

[Metaphysics]

So now Im a fascist because Im a Conservative, and dont fall in line with the liberal talking points? Thats nice, really.

And while you may be open to any kind of bashing, that is irrelevant, it is againts FB rules, pure and simple.

I just also want to mention that TRUE republicanism and conservatism is dead ever since Bush and his daddy came in power....I mean why the hell you think 1/2 is party wants to leave now cos of his stupid laws and bills on torture and the shredding of the constitution practically..cos it doesn't reflect the real republican party as it was before anyone of bush families came in power.

I don't agree with the right wing side which is why I am a left wing, but I think Bush has turned his party into a fascist one cos of his goals he wants to persue and convey, instead of reflecting the fundemental values and theories of conservatism.

Bush seems to have turned conservatism into 'bush-republicanism' - a fascist one! - I don't think he is a true conservative, I think he's a megalomaniac and has authortarian tendancies. What president says he's above the constitution and wants to re-interpret the genevea convention...I can tell he's a sick president. In the end, this so called bush conservatism is being reflected as normal conservatism/republicanism...he's normalised it really in my opinion, and this is where people percieve at as conservatism when it isn't. I know alot of americans in my politics class who are mostly conservative, from word of mouth they say that Bush is seriously isn't reflecting what conservatism really is.

Finally, if your a follower of conservatism then know you are NOT a fascist, of course not, conservative? go ahead and be it, I am just your left opposition but.....I think Bush has completely destroyed it and endoreses a fascist ideology now but by being a representive of his version repub party that it has become. There are some seriously unintelligent and ignorant people in america who think Bush is the best thing since Jesus, and think he's a true representative of the party and conservatism, rubbish!



A conservatism supporter = not a fascist

Bush-Republicanism = fascism, that republicanism isn't the real juice. In addition, real republicans are open to opposition and healthy debating, not demonising thier opposition by blaming thier faults on them throo spin, balance of power unequally distributed, blatent manufacturing consent on tv --> FOX NEWS?!?

I also think some good dose of american's who voted for him for a 2nd term also most likely voted him cos they can empathise with his iq level and dumbness...(yes ther are some seriously dumb and ignorant people in america)

Fascists use the cult of fear, Bush most CERTAINLY does.


And finally..... there are extreme left wing fascists that exist and have existed through history as well as right wing.

[Kari]

Hey guys, calm down.

Heather, I think nobody would ever seriously consider comparing you to a fascist. At least that would be very unfair, infantile and simply wrong and we all know that.

And now, let's all take a deep breathe and get a little more objective again.
I think it's slightly unobjective to go out and call Bush a fascist.
As little as I like him and as much as I do agree with the fact that he brought down some democratic ideals and that there might be traces of fascist methods in his politics, calling him a fascist would be too much.
Then practically every politician is a fascist nowadays...

[Metaphysics]

Hey guys, calm down.

Heather, I think nobody would ever seriously consider comparing you to a fascist. At least that would be very unfair, infantile and simply wrong and we all know that.

And now, let's all take a deep breathe and get a little more objective again.
I think it's slightly unobjective to go out and call Bush a fascist.
As little as I like him and as much as I do agree with the fact that he brought down some democratic ideals and that there might be traces of fascist methods in his politics, calling him a fascist would be too much.
Then practically every politician is a fascist nowadays...

I am calm as ever :D Just like to voice opinions in politics......I think it is just as unobjective to call him (when other peeps do) that he's a great president as well as a fascist cos they are both descriptive opinions :rolleyes:

Yes there are fascist leaders and politicians out there, thas where the hands of power and goals into thier hands and abuse it, become an illberal democracy and a fascist one. However not every politician is...leaders and memebers of EU most certainly aren't. I may not agree to the Uk joining a 'super state' and become a member but it's completely forbidden for a fascist ideology to be endorsed to members of the EU, they'd be simply sanctioned and kicked out. If Bush wanted to join the EU, mostly everyone is likely to object to that and say no cos of his reputation as a president, especially on human rights which is an extremely important thing here.

[Heather]

I just also want to mention that TRUE republicanism and conservatism is dead ever since Bush and his daddy came in power....I mean why the hell you think 1/2 is party wants to leave now cos of his stupid laws and bills on torture and the shredding of the constitution practically..cos it doesn't reflect the real republican party as it was before anyone of bush families came in power.

I don't agree with the right wing side which is why I am a left wing, but I think Bush has turned his party into a fascist one cos of his goals he wants to persue and convey, instead of reflecting the fundemental values and theories of conservatism.

Bush seems to have turned conservatism into 'bush-republicanism' - a fascist one! - I don't think he is a true conservative, I think he's a megalomaniac and has authortarian tendancies. What president says he's above the constitution and wants to re-interpret the genevea convention...I can tell he's a sick president. In the end, this so called bush conservatism is being reflected as normal conservatism/republicanism...he's normalised it really in my opinion, and this is where people percieve at as conservatism when it isn't. I know alot of americans in my politics class who are mostly conservative, from word of mouth they say that Bush is seriously isn't reflecting what conservatism really is.

Finally, if your a follower of conservatism then know you are NOT a fascist, of course not, conservative? go ahead and be it, I am just your left opposition but.....I think Bush has completely destroyed it and endoreses a fascist ideology now but by being a representive of his version repub party that it has become. There are some seriously unintelligent and ignorant people in america who think Bush is the best thing since Jesus, and think he's a true representative of the party and conservatism, rubbish!



A conservatism supporter = not a fascist

Bush-Republicanism = fascism, that republicanism isn't the real juice. In addition, real republicans are open to opposition and healthy debating, not demonising thier opposition by blaming thier faults on them throo spin, balance of power unequally distributed, blatent manufacturing consent on tv --> FOX NEWS?!?

I also think some good dose of american's who voted for him for a 2nd term also most likely voted him cos they can empathise with his iq level and dumbness...(yes ther are some seriously dumb and ignorant people in america)

Fascists use the cult of fear, Bush most CERTAINLY does.


And finally..... there are extreme left wing fascists that exist and have existed through history as well as right wing.

First of all, Conservatives AND Republicans for the most part have absolutely no problem speaking out when they disagree with the actions taken by our Republican politicans. Case in point, the insane amount of spending, not to mention immigration. Im a Conservative, and when I dont agree with Bush, I speak out, and say, "What the hell is he thinking?"

Hell, every single Republican politician has condemned Foley for his actions, when Democrats who have done the same are still serving in Congress, and are revered.

But at the same time I can agree with most of the Conservative ideology. The war on terror for instance. I have family in the military, and they, as well as I, completely agree with that. I could lay out everything that I agree with that the current administration has accomplished but that would be long winded, and Im tired. But a few points. Bush is not above the Constitution, we are in the middle of a war. That war is not against a nation, so the Geneva Convention does not apply. If we were at war with Pakistan, or Turkey, or any other nation, yes, it would. But we are not. There is no nation to declare war against...therefore, good-bye Geneva Convention. Secondly, I cannot for the life of me fathom how any liberal can argue that these "illegal" immigrants are being robbed of their rights. Their here illegally! They have no rights! Third, the Patriot Act, and everything that goes with it, was designed to keep YOU safe. Reread the Alien & Sedition Act. I dont see too many historian equating John Adams to a fascist...even though its pretty much the same damn law.

Also, I think you are confusing fascists with totalitarianists. Totitarianism by definition is rule through terror. That is not Bush, no matter how much the liberals hate him. He is not another Stalin, or another Hitler. You dont like him, thats fine. Personally, I hate Clinton. But I dont go around calling him names that dont apply. Hell, I dont even call him a philandering manwhore (which, he pretty much is).

Also, I find it ironic that you equate Bush to a fascist, when I know for a fact, and through personal experience, that if you criticized the Clinton Administration, when he was President, you ended up audited. Bush doesnt do that. Again, you dont like him, fine. But dont malign a man you dont agree with, just because you dont agree with him. Debate ideas, drop the insults.

And Kari...her exact words were:
Sean Hannity, despite being a supporter of the republican party, who I think are fascist.....
Considering the fact that I, not to mention other posters in here are Republicans, just how was I supposed to interpert that? She said that in her mind Republicans are fascists. Im a Republican. And one that has been attacked more than once, and is sick of it.

Ask Noah if Im a fascist, since he is the biggest liberal I know. Lets see what he has to say. Would Emma call me a friend if I were truly a fascist? Oh, but Im a Republican, so it must be true.

[Jon]

okay wow. i just read through this thread and i am beyond words. heather and i have been equated to fascists. which sadly has not been the first time. let me clear up a few things. bush is a GREAT man. both w. and h.w., beyond that, they have done nothing but to continue on the tradition of conservatism. i am still in disbelief that being a republican in this day and age is equal to be a fascist. for those that do not know where fascism is from. it started in italy under hitler. the party under him were the nazis of course. so now bush = hitler and republicans = nazis. what a world we live in. finally i shall state that fox news is all that i watch, and why is that? because they're fair and balanced, speaking of which....hannity & colmes is on tv right now. one final thought, i don't like someone who isn't from america judging republicans or any other people for that matter without actually living amongst them.

[Kari]

First of all, I think looking at current politicians in order to support any of our idelogies is getting us nowhere, I think. Politics seem to be full of wrongliness, corruption, lobbyism and that doesn't have anything to do with the party their in. Republicans, Conservatives, CDU, SPD, Tory, Labour...it's more or less become the same, the differences are fading. The things you used to reproach the opposite party seem to apply for them equally now.

Now, I stick with what I said, but I specify, Heather. Nobody who's in a right mind, ever talked to you or knows you a tiny bit, would not seriously consider calling you a fascist. I mean, I am liberal, extremely liberal and the biggest tree-hugger and pacifist and hippie, but I'd not even think of comparing you to a fascist and I guess the tiniest amount of people would.

I think it's simply populistic and dumb-witted to call Bush a fascist. However, a comparism is always legitime and not to be confused with name-calling.

There is stuff I do absolutely disagree with however.
Firstly, his concept of war on terror. I do not think this is going to work.
I read a pretty good speech by Kofi Annan regarding that matter.

Terrorism must be 'fought', but I still don't get through to Bush's "either with or against us"-policy, his painting the situation black and white.
I just don't see how harming the human rights will support this "war against terror". It makes more and more people sympathize with fundamentalists, the support for them is becoming broader and broader, and they get the chance to look become martyrs...
It's illogic to me how this is the right strategy. Now, I know of course that this is only one side - Guantanamó, innocent deaths etc - and that there is also the motivation of spreading democracy by helping countries re-build and establish a stable society. That is a good thing I whole-heartedly support, but that doesn't make Guantanamó and torture unhappen.
Secondly, I cannot for the life of me fathom how any liberal can argue that these "illegal" immigrants are being robbed of their rights. Their here illegally! They have no rights! Seriously, this is what is getting me the most. They are there illegally and I am pretty damn sure they are not only over there, because the sortiment in the supermarkets is better. I am rather guessing that it would have to do with poverty, misery and hope. Now, that doesn't change the fact that they are illegal immigrants, but it doesn't change the fact that they are human beings. There's a nice quotation saying "no human being is illegal" in reference to deportation etc. They are human so they have human rights.
let me clear up a few things. bush is a GREAT man. both w. and h.w.Oh, now, thanks for enlighting me with the full truth and wisdom.
i am still in disbelief that being a republican in this day and age is equal to be a fascist.Just because a few persons are of this opinion - which I guess, as stupid as it might be, is still their right - this is not the case. It's a minority opinion just as the one, I heard here stayed quite a while ago, that all liberals are hippies - which in my case is rather true ;) - or hyprocrites or whatever.

for those that do not know where fascism is from. it started in italy under hitler. the party under him were the nazis of course. so now bush = hitler and republicans = nazis.
Now as for that, chech back on your history book.
Fascism as a term first came up in Italy under Benito Mussolini as a notion for the political stream he was following with his party "Fasci Italiani di Combattimento" that was founded one year before the NSDAP (the nazis) under Hitler in Germany. Actually Mussolini was even an idol to Hitler when he planned his so called "March on Berlin" that failed in 1929.

So fascism genereally was a term for various European regimes during the first half of the 20th century. And while national socialism was of course as fascist ideology and above all barbaric, cyncal and irrational, it differed muchly from most other fascist government forms at that time.
If it has been "barely fascist", this war, this period would not have wounded the world half as deeply.

What actually was seperating the nazis from the "commom fascist" was their racial ideology that was based on the false imagination that the Jewish religion is a race, a people, which is of course bullshit and lead to the pseudo-scientific reasoning for the genocide that followed.

So, calling Bush Hitler and Republicans nazis would be a totally different implication than calling them fascists.

I realize we are so dritfing off topic, but I just think this is something from history people should be aware of.

Asides, I do believe poltics, international politics above all, even more so it is is about international terror do regard everybody, whether they live in America or not. And I seriously do not believe that not living in a country takes you the right to have an opinion on what is happening there. It's just natural, and perfectly legitime if people bother to inform themselves. Really, I'd rather you guys say Germany is a hell hole with a rotten economy and huge demographic problems and a parliament that is from left to right wing desolate and that we are all criminals - of which part is true - instead of being asked again whether I do live in West Germany or in East Germany, which since 1990 is not really a topic anymore.

I always feel better between people who are politically aware.

[Jon]

First of all, I think looking at current politicians in order to support any of our idelogies is getting us nowhere, I think. Politics seem to be full of wrongliness, corruption, lobbyism and that doesn't have anything to do with the party their in. Republicans, Conservatives, CDU, SPD, Tory, Labour...it's more or less become the same, the differences are fading. The things you used to reproach the opposite party seem to apply for them equally now.

Now, I stick with what I said, but I specify, Heather. Nobody who's in a right mind, ever talked to you or knows you a tiny bit, would not seriously consider calling you a fascist. I mean, I am liberal, extremely liberal and the biggest tree-hugger and pacifist and hippie, but I'd not even think of comparing you to a fascist and I guess the tiniest amount of people would.

I think it's simply populistic and dumb-witted to call Bush a fascist. However, a comparism is always legitime and not to be confused with name-calling.

There is stuff I do absolutely disagree with however.
Firstly, his concept of war on terror. I do not think this is going to work.
I read a pretty good speech by Kofi Annan regarding that matter.

Terrorism must be 'fought', but I still don't get through to Bush's "either with or against us"-policy, his painting the situation black and white.
I just don't see how harming the human rights will support this "war against terror". It makes more and more people sympathize with fundamentalists, the support for them is becoming broader and broader, and they get the chance to look become martyrs...
It's illogic to me how this is the right strategy. Now, I know of course that this is only one side - Guantanamó, innocent deaths etc - and that there is also the motivation of spreading democracy by helping countries re-build and establish a stable society. That is a good thing I whole-heartedly support, but that doesn't make Guantanamó and torture unhappen.
Seriously, this is what is getting me the most. They are there illegally and I am pretty damn sure they are not only over there, because the sortiment in the supermarkets is better. I am rather guessing that it would have to do with poverty, misery and hope. Now, that doesn't change the fact that they are illegal immigrants, but it doesn't change the fact that they are human beings. There's a nice quotation saying "no human being is illegal" in reference to deportation etc. They are human so they have human rights.
Oh, now, thanks for enlighting me with the full truth and wisdom.
Just because a few persons are of this opinion - which I guess, as stupid as it might be, is still their right - this is not the case. It's a minority opinion just as the one, I heard here stayed quite a while ago, that all liberals are hippies - which in my case is rather true ;) - or hyprocrites or whatever.


Now as for that, chech back on your history book.
Fascism as a term first came up in Italy under Benito Mussolini as a notion for the political stream he was following with his party "Fasci Italiani di Combattimento" that was founded one year before the NSDAP (the nazis) under Hitler in Germany. Actually Mussolini was even an idol to Hitler when he planned his so called "March on Berlin" that failed in 1929.

So fascism genereally was a term for various European regimes during the first half of the 20th century. And while national socialism was of course as fascist ideology and above all barbaric, cyncal and irrational, it differed muchly from most other fascist government forms at that time.
If it has been "barely fascist", this war, this period would not have wounded the world half as deeply.

What actually was seperating the nazis from the "commom fascist" was their racial ideology that was based on the false imagination that the Jewish religion is a race, a people, which is of course bullshit and lead to the pseudo-scientific reasoning for the genocide that followed.

So, calling Bush Hitler and Republicans nazis would be a totally different implication than calling them fascists.

I realize we are so dritfing off topic, but I just think this is something from history people should be aware of.

Asides, I do believe poltics, international politics above all, even more so it is is about international terror do regard everybody, whether they live in America or not. And I seriously do not believe that not living in a country takes you the right to have an opinion on what is happening there. It's just natural, and perfectly legitime if people bother to inform themselves. Really, I'd rather you guys say Germany is a hell hole with a rotten economy and huge demographic problems and a parliament that is from left to right wing desolate and that we are all criminals - of which part is true - instead of being asked again whether I do live in West Germany or in East Germany, which since 1990 is not really a topic anymore.

I always feel better between people who are politically aware.

i dont have tons o time to post but i will say this. i specificaly chose the nazi nalogy for a reason. secondly your cment about the annan reading you did. it doesnt surprise me you agree with him. he's one of the most inept people in the world on what is truly going on. secondly, Heather isbeyond correct. illegal people are just that. they have no rights if they sneak over to me. the rights we give are to our citizens and those here legally. why ot just give criminals thir rights to then? there is a reason why they're called illegal aliens. personally if i had a choice, all borders would be closed. anyone here, feel free to quote that, i stand by my comment.

[Kari]

Dude, it's not about your nazi analogy. That's not at all what I was arguing about, as you might read in my post.
You can make analogies between whom and whatever you want and be happy with it, that's not my beer.

You know what I am feeling very ambivalent about. You tell people you want to "clear things up for them", then there follows a completely subjective statement. You want to clear up something some people might not know and then you say something about fascism that is simply not true.
I mean, when you want to suggest that every liberal out there does compare the Republicans to nazis, feel free to do so. But when you claim to inform people in some way about the terms that are discussed maybe you should check on the facts.
It simply isn't so that fascism was developed in Italy under Hitler and the nazis. They took it and made it even worse with their ideology.
But if this whole debate was referring to fascism and an analogy between Conservatives and fascists it simply is pointless to equate fascists and nazis and then even explain the notion wrongly.
So the intention of my post was to clear up a mistake and not to comment on any analogies between nazis and conservatives and fascits and fish...
But I apparently failed to make that clear.

secondly your cment about the annan reading you did. it doesnt surprise me you agree with him. he's one of the most inept people in the world on what is truly going on.Yeah, because I blindly believe everything that is being told to me only because the man who is talking is Kofi Annan and because Kofi Annan is clearly the only one who ever stated an opinion like that. How come it doesn't surprise you I agree with him? It's not like we ever had deep talks about this subject that could have led you to form your opinion. All you know is I am liberal...
Now what you basically just said is how all liberals are inept and lacking a sense of reality and proportion, which again is rather prejudiced.

I mean, I am aware of the fact that Kofi Annan is not America's favourite guy anyways. Having an organ like the UN that is messing with everything must really suck, but I am not to judge on that anyways...

Now as for the last thing, thirdly, I think this is a very subjective subject and it has got a lot to do with ones idea of democracy and humanity. Me personally I feel repulsed by the excess of capitalism and utilitarianism.
That is why I do think illegal immigrants should be seen as what they are. Human beings with human rights and human dignity. Now I am not saying that it is a state's obligation to grant them all the admit to stay and general amnesia but for the time they are staying they should be treated as human beings. As I said, assumedly they left their home countries for a reason.
Probably most of them are not political refugees, some are however.
And even those who are there for financial reasons...how can they be blamed for not wanting to live in poverty. I mean the socio-economical disparities between different regions in this world are eminent, who can blame people for having hope.
But striving for a better future is apparently crime and makes them lawless now. I am not focussing this only on the United States but on the whole occidental wealthy society, also my country.

But since we were at the nazi analogy, why not stick with it, though it is an extreme example...
Everybody knows how during the Holocaust thousands and thousands of jews, homosexuals, sinti and roma, mentally ill, physically ill and political enemies were being persecuted and systematically deported to be killed.
Quite a few jews were able to emmigrate legally. That is, they were allowed in the other countries within certain quotas and if they were somehow of use for the host society.

Thousands didn't get the chance to do so. They emmigrated illegally. Are they criminals because of that?

[Webeh]

That is why I do think illegal immigrants should be seen as what they are. Human beings with human rights and human dignity. Now I am not saying that it is a state's obligation to grant them all the admit to stay and general amnesia but for the time they are staying they should be treated as human beings. As I said, assumedly they left their home countries for a reason.
Probably most of them are not political refugees, some are however.
And even those who are there for financial reasons...how can they be blamed for not wanting to live in poverty. I mean the socio-economical disparities between different regions in this world are eminent, who can blame people for having hope.

I have a question. How exactly are illegal immigrants being treated? I'm seeing "criminals" and "violation of human rights" being thrown around. What exactly is happening?

In Canada last year, a lot of Portuguese construction workers were deported because their illegal status was discovered. I'm still on the fence about how I feel about this. We do need the labour because no one else are filling these jobs and they were paying taxes. (Our system isn't very centralized.) However, they did enter illegally, which is so not cool if you consider how many people immigrate legally. (It's a long and difficult process.) But again on the other hand, our immigration system is so screwed up. They don't know what sort of people they should be letting in. We don't need Doctors or scientists or any other professionals. They wouldn't be able to find a job here anyways due to their foreign education. We need labourers and we're definitely in short supply of that. So, you can basically see how I'm flip-flopping on the issue.

My mom thought that these illegal immigrants should be allowed to apply for immigration and then be given a bump by the government. I'm totally okay with them applying for immigration legally. But, I'm not okay with them being pushed in front of other applicants who were using the legal process from the very beginning.

[Heather]

Seriously, this is what is getting me the most. They are there illegally and I am pretty damn sure they are not only over there, because the sortiment in the supermarkets is better. I am rather guessing that it would have to do with poverty, misery and hope. Now, that doesn't change the fact that they are illegal immigrants, but it doesn't change the fact that they are human beings. There's a nice quotation saying "no human being is illegal" in reference to deportation etc. They are human so they have human rights.
I didnt mean human rights, I meant constitutional rights. Liberals are constantly complaining about how the terrorists are being robbed of their constitutional rights. If you are not a citizen, or not a legal resident of the US, the Constitution doesnt apply to you. That was my point, Kari.

Also, thanks for your comments on me not being a fascist. And I know that anyone who has ever talked to me would know better. But I hate the constant slander that is thrown our way. You get to a point where you just cant take it anymore.

Hey, Jon!! I miss you, man! *sniff*

I'm totally okay with them applying for immigration legally. But, I'm not okay with them being pushed in front of other applicants who were using the legal process from the very beginning.
See my thing is this. Both Canada and the US are nations of immigrants, and have been from day one. Which is great. I think its wonderful that we are like that. But here's the thing. My grandfather was an immigrant, my great-grandparents were all immigrants. But they went through the LEGAL channels to come here. And back then, you couldnt step foot in the US unless you had a sponsor, and a job waiting for you. Now, we have all these people sneaking in, living here illegally, and they demand the same rights as citizens, and those who went through the legal process. That is not cool. If our ancestors could do it, so can they. I remember being supremely pissed off when they had an immigration lottery in NYC a few years ago. Its like rewarding them for breaking our laws.

In my mind, its simple. Follow our laws, or go somewhere else.

[Kari]

But terrorists is anyway another story than illegal immigrants, I'd say.

I was guessing you were referring to constitutional rights and not to human rights about the immigrants. You are right, not being a citizen of a state means you have no claim on the state's rights. What I was referring to is that bone simply can't say they have no rights. Being a human being implies some rights, but that's an ehtical matter.

But I don't understand the analogy between terrorists and illegal immigrants.

As far as I am informed this summer it was passed that the prisoners in Guantanamo are from now on protected by the Geneva Conventions. But I guess it is a matter of interpretation in how far the Geneva Conventions apply there and both sides will find a way of making it look like they are in this case.

[Heather]

Alot of the terrorists in the US are illegal immigrants, in fact, the majority of them are. Thats the analogy.

And anytime I am talking about rights, I am referring to legal rights. Just a footnote. ;)

I just dont see why the Geneva Convention is even a factor. These arent nations we are fighting, but independent fanatics. What was laid out in Geneva no longer applies. Im not saying we should disregard our morals to get information from them, and become monsters...but how can they be protected under the Geneva Convention when they dont have an allegiance to any nation?

[Jon]

Now as for that, chech back on your history book.
Fascism as a term first came up in Italy under Benito Mussolini as a notion for the political stream he was following with his party "Fasci Italiani di Combattimento" that was founded one year before the NSDAP (the nazis) under Hitler in Germany. Actually Mussolini was even an idol to Hitler when he planned his so called "March on Berlin" that failed in 1929.

So fascism genereally was a term for various European regimes during the first half of the 20th century. And while national socialism was of course as fascist ideology and above all barbaric, cyncal and irrational, it differed muchly from most other fascist government forms at that time.
If it has been "barely fascist", this war, this period would not have wounded the world half as deeply.

What actually was seperating the nazis from the "commom fascist" was their racial ideology that was based on the false imagination that the Jewish religion is a race, a people, which is of course bullshit and lead to the pseudo-scientific reasoning for the genocide that followed.

So, calling Bush Hitler and Republicans nazis would be a totally different implication than calling them fascists.

I realize we are so dritfing off topic, but I just think this is something from history people should be aware of.

I know what fascism is and where it started from, Heather and I have both been called it enough times to know what it means.

Anyways, why I said what I said was in fact true. You're looking at what I said in a different perspective. To myself and many others the term fascism has drifted away from Mussolini. In my mind this would be the best definition of fascism. It's taken from Wikipedia, so I would hope it's considered a legitimate source to you.

In time, the generic term fascism came to cover a class of authoritarian political ideologies, parties, and political systems. The most notable of these parties, created after World War I, are the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazis) under Adolf Hitler.

I should have explained myself better but truly did not have tons of time to post what I had wanted. Anyhow, that's how i see fascism. I mean Mussolini is correct too, but in my mind, if I am called a fascist, I am basically compared to a nazi.

[Heather]

^^^ that is very true. When I hear the word fascist, images of Hitler and Stalin come to mind...followed by Mussolini. Yes, Mussolini was a fascist, but not the first one that comes

[Kari]

Oh good God, it is simply not right.
You said fascism first came up in Italy under Hitler. Paradox. Either it first came up in Italy under Mussolini, or it first came up in Germany under Hitler. Since you were clearing up for us where it first came up the first would be true.

Of course Hitler is nowadays the fascist that comes to our mind the very first, probably before Stalin or Mussolini or Franco for obvious reasons.
But it is not a coincidence that most historicists don't simply refer to Hitler's ideology as fascism but as national socialist fascism or racist fascism.
Yep, state control and fascist methods did reach a scary inhuman height under Hitler, but as I said before he muchly differed from other fascists.

As for the Wikipedia quote. I do regard it as a proper source but never take information from wikipedia without double checking on a book or some other sites, in case the info is not precise. Because it's for a reason they are called the free encyclopedia.

Now, while the article certainly does say that the most notable fascist party were the NSDAP - and is certainly right with it, for they are after all the first to come to our minds - it does nowhere say that this is where it first came up and you were claiming to inform us on that.

And asides, were you ever called antisemitical here, because that would be implied by a nazi fascist analogy.

I checked on the wikipedia article (a good one, by the way, I recommend everybody to read the whole of it, for that should really clear stuff up.) and there are some pretty good definitions on the term fascism. After all there is no intensional definition of the term fascism, it is mostly extensional, but after all even the try of creating an intensional one never comes up with a list of necessary and sufficient properties.

And that Mussolini isn't the first one who comes to our mind when we hear the word fascism doesnt mean that he wasn't the first one to create a fascist regime.

But, I think I should let that be now. I do believe you know what fascism is, maybe it was just a slip. I just think this part of history is one of the most important and relevant and it should be treated with extreme care to the details and facts.

[Jon]

^^^ that is very true. When I hear the word fascist, images of Hitler and Stalin come to mind...followed by Mussolini. Yes, Mussolini was a fascist, but not the first one that comes

Sorry about that I was trying to quote not edit your post. Anyways, nope I didn't.

Kari - I just made a slip with what I was saying about fascism is all.

[Kari]

Well, then I am all calm and nice.
And maybe some even learned from this debate yippie...

but darn, I just started a mighty mighty interesting book about Guantanamo with interviews with ex-prisonners.
Not nice what you get to read there, rather sad actually.

You know what I think Guantanamo is. It's the biggest scandal that there is in international politics at the moment. All of it. The way prisoners are treated, the way they are brought there, the way ex-prisoners are kept silent, the way press is kept away from it.

I mean, didn't Bush say he recommends each and every journalist to come there are get an impression themselves. That seems rather absurd to me...but then, that is just me.

[Metaphysics]

First of all, Conservatives AND Republicans for the most part have absolutely no problem speaking out when they disagree with the actions taken by our Republican politicans. Case in point, the insane amount of spending, not to mention immigration. Im a Conservative, and when I dont agree with Bush, I speak out, and say, "What the hell is he thinking?"

Interesting

Hell, every single Republican politician has condemned Foley for his actions, when Democrats who have done the same are still serving in Congress, and are revered

I think that really any politician involved in any sex scandal should resign immediately, I admit it’s the fault of Clinton in not firing/asking them to resign while these ‘sexual predators’ still roam in congress.


But at the same time I can agree with most of the Conservative ideology. The war on terror for instance. I have family in the military, and they, as well as I, completely agree with that. I could lay out everything that I agree with that the current administration has accomplished but that would be long winded, and Im tired. But a few points. Bush is not above the Constitution, we are in the middle of a war. That war is not against a nation, so the Geneva Convention does not apply. If we were at war with Pakistan, or Turkey, or any other nation, yes, it would. But we are not. There is no nation to declare war against...therefore, good-bye Geneva Convention. Secondly, I cannot for the life of me fathom how any liberal can argue that these "illegal" immigrants are being robbed of their rights. Their here illegally! They have no rights! Third, the Patriot Act, and everything that goes with it, was designed to keep YOU safe. Reread the Alien & Sedition Act. I dont see too many historian equating John Adams to a fascist...even though its pretty much the same damn law.

Bush wants to now bomb Iran, which he says are providing weapons to Hezbollah which are terrorist activities being practiced there but also starting a nuclear program. He is gonna occupy that country cos of the war on terror but also cos of having the ability to create nuclear energy, that is a war against a nation as well as a war on terror so tell me does the Geneva Convention not apply there?!


Bush has said he is above the constitution, but as well as saying it he’s reflected it in his actions. He is has violated too many amendments by introducing the patriot act, camp x-ray, torture bill, the nsa spying and now suspension of habeas corpus. Attorney General Gonzalez has said don’t question the president on the war on terror ….that is the violation of the first amendment. The patriot act is the violation of the 4th amendment, he passed that god-awful act without any congressional hearing, it was most certainly not designed for our safety. It means everyone even in America is a suspect when he wants to protect the people; he makes them look like terrorists rather the citizens being protected. How can one arrest someone or search someone’s home without a warrant or any evidence presented?! That is the violation of the 6,7 and 8 amendments. This guy has even violated the 9th amendment with the NSA spying scandal and turning America into a big brother style shite hole.

In addition, the worse one of all and this practically is an ass wipe to the bill of rights and that is the suspension of habeas corpus. That hasn’t been suspended since the civil war and now he has suspended it on the terror suspects who were detained without evidence presented or given a fair trial So now that they can’t bring them to court to determine whether their imprisonment was legal when it wasn’t. They were unlawfully detained and now they can’t have habeas corpus, ladies and gentlemen this is the United States in 2006! (they can’t even have even have the basic human right there)

What “conservative” president has said he is above the constitution and has violated 6 god damn amendments?! Bush and his dad most certainly are the first. I most certainly don’t think Bush on foreign policy and domestic policy reflects conservative values, nowhere near. Also, if this was the left side hell I’d be damned, he wouldn't be reflecting left wing values. Whether your left or right, if you violate amendments, say your above the constitution, pass acts and laws that infringe human rights and freedom then that is one fascist-authoritarian mind. Additionally, occupy another country against the UN resolution, who are ABOVE the United States.

On illegal immigrants…well I can’t really say much other than they are here illegally, I simply say deport them till they apply here legally, the won’t even get the chance to have constitutional rights cos they gonna get deported.

Also, I think you are confusing fascists with totalitarianists. Totitarianism by definition is rule through terror. That is not Bush, no matter how much the liberals hate him. He is not another Stalin, or another Hitler. You dont like him, thats fine. Personally, I hate Clinton. But I dont go around calling him names that dont apply. Hell, I dont even call him a philandering manwhore (which, he pretty much is).

Also, I find it ironic that you equate Bush to a fascist, when I know for a fact, and through personal experience, that if you criticized the Clinton Administration, when he was President, you ended up audited. Bush doesnt do that. Again, you dont like him, fine. But dont malign a man you dont agree with, just because you dont agree with him. Debate ideas, drop the insults.


Woman, I am debating ideas……

I am most defintly not confusing fascists with totalitarianists. Fascists doesn’t exactly equal totalitarianists but is associated it with it. Fascism isn’t just associated with totalitarianists but also associated with authoritarianists. Totalitarianism and authoritarianism are similar but not the same. Totalitarianism is where there is a centralised government and where there is no opposition other than that itself. Authoritarianism is a form of government that conveys the idea of strict obedience and authority, usually enforces forms of social and/or economic control by stifling, but also, it can be someone who wants dominates everything that is around him.

Now I most definitely think Bush has authoritarian tendencies, I did not say he is a totalitarian and did not confuse it with yours and johns definition of a fascist (nazism, does not equal fascism, nazism is a thread of it). Regardless of whatever ideology you believe in, communism, socialism, liberalism, conservativism, nazism etc, they all have the potential of being a strand of fascism, it’s all down to how the president or person in power behaves and reflects the political system. Whatever political ideology, it can be seen as stand of fascism, not equal to nazism or be called and compared to a nazi just cos I called Bush a fascist. Bush doesn’t directly equate 2 nazism, bush equates to fascism.


okay wow. i just read through this thread and i am beyond words. heather and i have been equated to fascists. which sadly has not been the first time. let me clear up a few things. bush is a GREAT man. both w. and h.w., beyond that, they have done nothing but to continue on the tradition of conservatism. i am still in disbelief that being a republican in this day and age is equal to be a fascist. for those that do not know where fascism is from. it started in italy under hitler. the party under him were the nazis of course. so now bush = hitler and republicans = nazis. what a world we live in. finally i shall state that fox news is all that i watch, and why is that? because they're fair and balanced, speaking of which....hannity & colmes is on tv right now. one final thought, i don't like someone who isn't from america judging republicans or any other people for that matter without actually living amongst them.


Think whatever you like if Bush is a great man, I just wouldn’t wanna be in your shoes or frame of mind there. True conservatives/republicans aren’t fascist, Bush’s administration and fellow supporters of his insanity are, so you tell me are you a real conservative who reflects conservative values or bush’s demented ones? Trust me, there is one hell of a difference….he has most definitely not continued on the tradition of conservatism, he’s manipulated it to something of his own. Here's an article that has been written that emphasises my point-http://www.antiwar.com/bandow/?articleid=9847

Cos how popular nazism is associated to fascism, that’s the only example that seems to stand out in your mind which is why your saying nazism = fascism.. Fascism may have started in Italy but like I said, any political belief (ideology) that government follows is can be a strand of fascism so in this case, nazism with Hitler, nazism was a thread of fascism, fascism….any politician with whatever style of government can follow, but the relative factor is level of power, what actions they take and what kinda of leader are they: totalitarian and/or authoritarian. Personally, it doesn’t matter what ideology you are it’s power that one government has and the actions it takes. If Bush was a democrat I would have called him a fascist cos how he’s behaving, regardless.


To be technical, Bush and crononies are fascist, but to be specfic, neo fascists, an evolved form of fascism also known as modern fascism. There is economic corporatism and control of the media, (the big companies taking over media outlets, propaganda and manufacturing consent can easily be active), authoritarianism (saying he is above the constitution, violation of the bill rights, passing laws before even letting congress have a say, delcaring war against the UN resolution), disdain for recognition of human rights….I mean recently this week, a man went up 2 Dick Cheney and said ‘the war on iraq was reprehensible’, he got arrested by the secret service agents (SS lol) for insulting the vice president, I mean wtf, he said 'reprehensible' ….his first amendment rights have been taken away: the right to free speech!


I am a very frequent visitor of America, I have family there and I am in the process of immigrating there, I give one serious damn about the USA here.


At the end of the day, you have the right to disagree to what I have to say; I stay firm on my opinion.