The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

Probably not.

At the time Nazism arose, it could still draw upon strong cultural and traditional elements that are currently all but dead (in and of itself not a good thing, but it undermines the persuasive power of that specific ideology).

What Ideology?
Nazism flourished because after Germany was put in a all but untenable situation after WW1. "Here, here is a way to restore our nation to it's former glory and power"

Appeals to science, "pseudo" as it was

uh, huh.

, fusion of racism and socialism - they caught the perfect balance between deep-rooted culture and the trendy waves of their time and rode it to victory.

What deep rooted culture are you speaking of? I am not denying that Gemany had a long history, but what -culture- are you refering to?

In modern-day Germany or Italy, it would be near-impossible to repeat because the de-Nazification forcefully imposed on them after they were conquered was quite effective. (It is no accident that the majority of German neo-Nazis are in the east, which was not subjected to such comprehensive suppression of Nazi influences).

So, assuming your position is correct, you believe that overt suppression of idea's is a good idea?
Where do we start?

The problem with ISIS is that -denials notwithstanding - its ideology draws upon Islam. It is also nowhere near as far removed from the Muslim societies' mainstream as Nazism is from the Western mainstream.

That is garbage.
The core values of Nazism still exist, and are everywhere if you bother to look. Fascism, the desire to control information, "Manifest Destiny", extreme Nationalism.
Just because it is not as overt as ISIS does not mean it does not exist.

The ideas ISIS harnesses - from intolerance to non-Muslim minorities to militaristic revanchism to pursuit of harsh cultural austerity - are tremendously popular across the Muslim world, and virtually every Muslim nation has its own group - oftentimes many groups - whose only difference from ISIS is that they're yet to adopt the label. There is no vast gulf between ISIS preachers and Ayatollah Khamenei, despite them ostensibly being from different branches of Islam; distill their ideas to politically applicable essence and you're left with a quest to impose Islamic supremacy of one kind or another by any means necessary. There is no vast gulf between ISIS and Hamas, Hezbollah, Hizb ut Tahrir, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Ansar Al-Islam et cetera despite nominal sectarian differences. There's not a vast gulf between ISIS and state-sanctioned Islam of Saudi Arabia. They could all arrange a preacher exchange program without any impact on the contents of preaching.

So, if a book, especially a religious book can be construed as hateful, it should go?
You know what, I agree. burn them, get rid off them, control the information.
Hang on, I know a regime that was famous for that approach.

ISIS is organic to the peoples among which it emerged, and the nice-and-fluffy ideas with which we are trying to defeat it are alien to them, that is the big problem.

Yes it is.

Yes, barring that, and the mad wave of refugees, and the shutdowns of whole cities, and the fact that these things escalate from year to year... Turn enough blind eye to the differences, and there are no differences.

I could say the word "Muslim" and I could alter your entire perception of events, and most importantly, how to re-act to that event.
Abra-cadabra!!

That's plainly untrue.

I am yet to see a reason why I should consider your version of truth, truth, let alone calling that which you disagree with untrue.

ISIS exercises monopoly on violence in territories it controls. It dictates the laws, the lifestyle and the economy. It's not a recognized government, but the lack of a stamp of world approval doesn't diminish their power over their subjects. ISIS is an occupying force in the process of establishing a state all the way down to attempting to issue its own currency. Let them put down roots, and they'll be a state before you know it.

Good, let them become a state, because you can fight a state, you can bomb a state, you can declare war on a state, you can invade a state and according to you, you can re-program a state.
I am -all for- ISIS becoming a state, because then they have something solid, something concrete to LOSE.

Sure it can be forced upon whole groups. In fact, that's how it works EVERYWHERE in the world, including in democracies- ideas are "programmed" into people by way of education, particularly early education. People are raised on ideas they receive through education.

Yes they are.

De-Nazification of West Germany was a comprehensive - and coercive - effort to reeducate an entire people. The Allied didn't just "present alternatives". There was a US Army Information Control Division, which controlled German newspapers, radio stations, theaters, magazines, book publishers. There was a list of tens of thousands of book titles subject to confiscation on the grounds of contributing to Nazism, and ownership of such books was a criminal offense (basically the Nazis' own book burning, reversed). Occupation Directive JCS 1067 ordered the destruction of all German military museums and memorials. There was harsh censorship of any criticism of the new order. There was a strictly enforced education curriculum dictated to Germany by its conquerors. US Army Psychological Warfare Division distributed posters with photos from concentration camps and titles such as "You are guilty of this!" to drive the point home. Groups of German civilians were taken on trips to concentration camps to be shown their horrors; on some such trips, they were forced to exhume mass graves.

So, to end their enemy, they became that which they were fighting against?

Notice, though, that all of those actions have a single precondition - military control (occupation) of the people subject to reeducation - following a military defeat.

What are you going to occupy in ISIS that they care about?
Take their land, they will just push into a new area. They have no -tie- to any of the land they control.

Any territory they control is the battlefield. Wherever ISIS controls territory, you have a pocket of people whose information is controlled by ISIS.

Not how I would put it, but ok.

It's because you don't understand history, I'm afraid.

An ideology with no land, but people, who slaughter everyone before them when God tells them to carve out a new home......
Hmm, who am I talking about.

[Womble]

What Ideology?
Nazism flourished because after Germany was put in a all but untenable situation after WW1. "Here, here is a way to restore our nation to it's former glory and power"

Lots of countries were in that position, not all of them spawned Nazis.

The origins of Nazism were in the so-called "Völkisch nationalism" which preceded WW1 by a good century. The ideas of "blood and soil" go back to at least the Napoleonic wars. "Völkisch nationalism" itself rested heavily on romanticizing the German past and attempting to revive the German pagan traditions - hence the pursuit of "Aryan" purity, the use of runes and the swastika. That stuff was in place as a popular ideology before WW1, the defeat in war simply gave it the jolt that eventually (after two decades) brought it to power.

So, assuming your position is correct, you believe that overt suppression of idea's is a good idea?

Sometimes it is.

Think of such ideas as diseases. You can never fully get rid of diphteria's presence in the world, and that's not the goal. The goal is to reduce its prevalence until it fades away as a significant danger. Vaccination and living a healthy lifestyle that boosts your natural immunity and lowers chances of infection is all well and good, but when an outbreak happens in a population that isn't vaccinated, you need to suppress it with antibiotics and antitoxins.

That is garbage.
The core values of Nazism still exist, and are everywhere if you bother to look. Fascism, the desire to control information, "Manifest Destiny", extreme Nationalism.
Just because it is not as overt as ISIS does not mean it does not exist.

It's not a question of whether or not it exists. Just like diphteria, extreme ideas will always lurk on the fringes and hide in the cracks. It's when they emerge in force and gain power that they become a concern that must be addressed by aggressive means.

So, if a book, especially a religious book can be construed as hateful, it should go?
You know what, I agree. burn them, get rid off them, control the information.
Hang on, I know a regime that was famous for that approach.

*Sigh*

You can construe the most harmless children's book as hateful; progressives the world over have been on a PC crusade to vilify harmless old texts for decades. That, in and of itself, isn't what makes a book worth banning. It's not a theoretical exercise in "what ifs"; it's the question of whether or not that book causes a sufficient degree of harm in current conditions to justify a ban.

Re-educating a population necessarily requires a ban on some types of information sources, as was the case in post-war Germany. In fact, most societies restrict the use of some types of information sources for certain population groups - most notably for children.

I could say the word "Muslim" and I could alter your entire perception of events, and most importantly, how to re-act to that event.
Abra-cadabra!!

Or not. Or I could go ahead and dismiss the idea that we should ignore cold hard facts for the sake of PC.

I am yet to see a reason why I should consider your version of truth, truth, let alone calling that which you disagree with untrue.

That was not a standalone sentence, and the reasoning was right in the next line, why rip it out of context?

Good, let them become a state, because you can fight a state, you can bomb a state, you can declare war on a state, you can invade a state and according to you, you can re-program a state.
I am -all for- ISIS becoming a state, because then they have something solid, something concrete to LOSE.

That is the kind of cretinous logic that's played a huge role in creating the current mess. If we follow your logic to its conclusion, we should stop bombing ISIS and start giving them money and bombing their foes to assist ISIS in their conquests - the sooner they become a state, the sooner they have something concrete to LOSE, and then we got them exactly where we want them, right?

ISIS goal isn't statehood, it's domination of Islam. If it becomes a state, it gains new tools to use towards that goal. If you take that state away, they will go back to being, well, ISIS, and will show off their willingness to reject power and wealth in favor of piety and noble struggle until victory. Becoming a state will not imbue them with greater morality or with a sense of responsibility for the population they govern, or with fear of losing something. These guys are honest-to-Allah fanatics going up against pretty much the entire world, don't count on them selling out.

So, to end their enemy, they became that which they were fighting against?

Oh, that is a good question. Did de-Nazification of Germany make the Allies as bad as the Nazis were because they used some of the same strategies? Please give an honest answer to that one.

What are you going to occupy in ISIS that they care about?
Take their land, they will just push into a new area. They have no -tie- to any of the land they control.

Who gives a rat's rear end what ISIS cares about? ISIS are an army, they must be destroyed the way the Tamil Tigers were destroyed in Sri Lanka.

It's the populations who spawned ISIS who need to be reeducated. The Syrians and the Iraqis. If you really want to once-and-for-all end ISIS, treat it like malaria. Dry the swamp.

An ideology with no land, but people, who slaughter everyone before them when God tells them to carve out a new home......
Hmm, who am I talking about.

I agree. I'm never quite sure who or what you're talking about. Your mind appears to work in random associations and illogical zigzags

[Annoyed]

This may or may not be accurate, it's too soon to have all the facts. But I heard on the radio this morning that it was two Muslims attacking a Christmas gathering.

And the problem is a lack of gun control? Not likely.

Ok, here we are a few days later, and the facts are now known. As expected, it has turned out to be ISIS handiwork.

And also as expected, the leader of the strongest nation on Earth has this to say about it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/us...-shooting.html

WASHINGTON — President Obama edged closer Saturday to declaring the shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., that killed 14 people a terrorist attack, but stuck to his prescription that the answer to preventing such tragedies was gun limits.

The idiot can't even bring himself to call it what it was.

This is a war. ISIS has declared war on non-believers, and has clearly stated their intentions to kill or convert all non-believers.

Unfortunately, regardless of whether they are right or wrong, fair or not, bad things happen to good people in wars. And to be honest, until ISIS is exterminated as a threat, it's going to be a bad period of time to be a Muslin. Profiling will happen. Innocent people, of Muslim and other faiths as well will be killed. As target of ISIS and as collateral damage resulting from strikes against ISIS. No amount of whining about how it's not fair or right will change these facts.

The situation is entirely the fault of ISIS and it's aggressive war against the infidels.

Sadly, the rest of the world is going to have to go it alone without much help from the U.S. because our current sorry excuse for a president has made it clear that he is not going to go on the offensive against ISIS.

Hopefully, the rest of the world can work together and carry out military operations to kill ISIS without our help. But make no mistake. War is a very unpleasant business, and there will be collateral damage, up to and including the deaths of innocent people. I don't like this situation any more than anyone else does but those are the facts. If the world at large cannot accept these facts and move forward in exterminating ISIS anyway, ISIS has already won.

[Falcon Horus]

Last I heard the connection with Daesh was an "alleged" one as in they didn't even know of the existence of the two, according to unnamed sources in the know of such things.

Also, did they find actual, pyshical evidence to support that claim? Because last I heard the couple destroyed their harddrives. I don't know how long it really takes for the FBI to get the necessary papers to get providers to release such information but it sure isn't like it's on TV.

Anyhow, I guess Daesh considers it free advertising and thus they make the claim. Make use of the moment, even if they were lone wolves (or not). Personally I feel there are more unanswered questions than there are answered ones.

An act of terrorism and only manage to shoot 14 people, and not detonate the bombs they planted, plus they didn't blow themselves up either, but died in the firefight later on. Doesn't sound very Daesh-like.

[aretood2]

Plenty of Muslims who are already recoiling from the flag. All those oppressed by Daesh...

If only they were free to tell their stories to the Muslim world. Nope, we should keep them under ISIS control, that way they will not tell the Muslim world how bad and horrible and evil ISIS really is. We will win their hearts and minds in that fashion...or we could liberate them and have them spread the word. Have Syrians and Iraqis witness the mass graves, hold the disembodied heads in their hands and learn that this should never ever happen again. Burn all ISIS propaganda and hold those responsible on trial both in the public and legally. It worked wonderfully for the Germans, why wouldn't it work for Syrians and Iraqis?

There's two options, and only one of them will work to ISIS's advantage. The other...well...would destroy ISIS making it and its ideology a pariah. Which one should we pick?

[Annoyed]

There's two options, and only one of them will work to ISIS's advantage. The other...well...would destroy ISIS making it and its ideology a pariah. Which one should we pick?

A dead enemy is harmless. At the worst, all it can do is stink up the joint as it decomposes.

[Annoyed]

Last I heard the connection with Daesh was an "alleged" one as in they didn't even know of the existence of the two, according to unnamed sources in the know of such things.

Also, did they find actual, pyshical evidence to support that claim? Because last I heard the couple destroyed their harddrives. I don't know how long it really takes for the FBI to get the necessary papers to get providers to release such information but it sure isn't like it's on TV.

Anyhow, I guess Daesh considers it free advertising and thus they make the claim. Make use of the moment, even if they were lone wolves (or not). Personally I feel there are more unanswered questions than there are answered ones.

An act of terrorism and only manage to shoot 14 people, and not detonate the bombs they planted, plus they didn't blow themselves up either, but died in the firefight later on. Doesn't sound very Daesh-like.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-of-terrorism/

The FBI said Friday that it is investigating the San Bernardino, Calif., massacre as an act of terrorism, with officials revealing that the Pakistani woman who teamed with her husband in the slaughter went on Facebook afterward to pledge her allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State.

Investigators are trying to determine whether the husband-and-wife killers acted alone — inspired, but not directed, by foreign Islamist radicals — or were involved in a more elaborate plot.

Hundreds of federal agents, in the United States and overseas, are looking for any contacts that the shooters — Chicago-born Syed Rizwan Farook, 29, and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, 27 — might have had with terrorist groups.

“The investigation so far has developed indications of radicalization by the killers and of potential inspiration by foreign terrorist organizations,” FBI Director James B. Comey said Friday. But he said that, so far, there is no evidence that they were part of a larger group.

Walks, talks, smells like and acts like a duck.

It's a duck.

Doesn't matter if they were acting alone or in concert with others, the motivation was following the decrees of ISIS.

[SoulReaver]

Walks, talks, smells like and acts like a duck.

It's a duck.

Doesn't matter if they were acting alone or in concert with others, the motivation was following the decrees of ISIS.

oi! I agree

I'll also add, does it matter what sort of islamists they were? (eg. Alqaeda ain't really better it's just that they're far less powerful & dangerous than Daech atm)

[Annoyed]

And the never ending flow of BS coming from our sorry excuse for a president continues.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/politi...sis/index.html

Washington (CNN)President Barack Obama said in an interview that aired Thursday that he is confident the U.S. is safe from a Paris-style attack from ISIS and that American law enforcement is well equipped to protect the nation during the holidays.

"ISIL will not pose an existential threat to us. They are a dangerous organization like al Qaeda was, but we have hardened our defenses," Obama told CBS. "The American people should feel confident that, you know, we are going to be able to defend ourselves and make sure that, you know, we have a good holiday and go about our lives."

Ok, that was just a run of the mill office party in Calif. the other day, I guess.

Obama also told CBS that when he promised "no boots on the ground" in the fight against ISIS, that Americans understood him to mean no "battalions," and not that he wouldn't send any troops there at all.

"When I said 'no boots on the ground,' I think the American people understood generally we are not going to do an Iraq-style invasion of Iraq or Syria with battalions that are moving across the desert," Obama said in another clip CBS aired Thursday.

I guess it comes down to what the meaning of the phrase "Boots on the Ground" is, eh, Mr. Clinton. LSoS?

[pookey]

Just the boots, no peeps in em? perhaps

[aretood2]

Just the boots, no peeps in em? perhaps

It would be a good start. At least the Kurds can use those boots.

[Annoyed]

Just the boots, no peeps in em? perhaps

Considering the vast military knowledge of our "community organizer in chief", I wouldn't be surprised.

[Falcon Horus]

Doesn't matter if they were acting alone or in concert with others, the motivation was following the decrees of ISIS.

Still no actual proof then... cause that's the same article I read yesterday.

At least the Kurds can use those boots.

Now them are kicking some serious butt.

[SoulReaver]

so for the moment we know they were muslims, but we don't know which organization (if any) these terrorists belonged to
ISIS of course will claim responsibility no matter what. lol

[Annoyed]

What sort of proof do you want?

The ISIS radio report came a day after the FBI said it was treating the attack as an act of terrorism.

It also came after reports that Malik made a public declaration of loyalty to ISIS' leader while the attack was underway. Three U.S. officials familiar with the investigation told CNN on Friday that Malik posted to Facebook a pledge of allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

It doesn't matter a bit if they were official members or not, they were pursuing the same agenda.