You and the others mentioned have constantly represented or defended Islamist ideology, positions and actions (e.g., wishing death or fear of death upon someone because he/she made a cartoon, etc.). I, on the other hand, have never ever with even one word defended or represented any Nazi ideology. It is laughable to even throw that word around as lightly as you uneducated kids do.
you've missed my entire point. i'm not talking about a "no fly zone." i'm talking about a pre-emptive strike to destroy the libyan airforce, and any armored capability they might have (that we can get access to). full stop. no long-term commitment to patrol libyan airspace, no ground forces (i suspect there are some CIA/SF types there already), no invasion. no no fly zone.
When people are calling you Nazi, they are not referring to the traditional traits. They are referring to the modern Nazi. Even the NPD in Germany don't officially share the dominating traits of traditional Naziism. Racism is not absolute in nature. As human rights have progressed over time, racism and bigotry have tried to catch up. One of the common tricks of this trade is to identify parallel traits - so, for example, many people who are racist towards "brown people" will be easily attracted to anti-Islamic causes because it offers a bridge for them to act on their racial beliefs while deflecting the idea that the views are in fact racial. After all, Islam is not a race, so how can they be racist right? lol Other things include hatred towards churches that are largely affiliated with "black people" etc, an excessively strong disdain of the concept of socialism, for some Americans perhaps that manifests itself into "we need to start manufacturing everything in America", etc. Obviously, many will be genuine with their views, but racists and bigots are like rats - when someone destroys their comfort zone, they will flee elsewhere, and these are places where they take refuge usually. It's also worth reading and learning about subversive racism, which is the new racism. Anyone who is still racist by traditional definition can now be considered, IMO, mentally incompetent and deranged. They are not strategic and rational racists, and pose very little danger to society. With these kinds of people, you can't let up. A person who has genuine issues with Islam is unlikely to have a uniform opinion of all things Islamic. It's illogical. This is why you can identify the modern racists and bigots, they will have unusually uniform opinions of a variety of topics. So for example, Islamophobes will usually generate a negative view of positive and sometimes neutral things. They will start attaching things with little or no proof: Islamic charity (terrorist funding), prayer (public show offs), revolution (terrorist take-over), political reform ("but what about that 1% they HAVEN'T reformed?"), sometimes even an incessant distrust of the "other side" which, frankly, is embodied by your inability to accept my apology about the cartoonist or my exit from being a Muslim. The ideology is gone (according to you, a shared uniform ideology called Islam), but you repeatedly call those things into question the moment you need it. In fact, if you look at your quote, you really have nothing in there other than "Mathloom once said he wants the cartoonist to live in fear, and I don't believe his apology." This despite me not participating in this Nazi discussion, and you not having any examples to note where the other guys have defended Islamist actions in a subjective way. Also most important to remember, the modern racist or bigot will never ever ever ever make a statement which directly falls under the definition of racism or bigotry. It is rule number 1, 2 and 3. So if you're waiting for someone to say something which is outright racist/bigoted, that's rarely ever going to happen. I'm not calling you a Nazi obviously. But I think it's important for you and the people you're arguing with to understand these things since you are not having a real discussion, but rather differing on the scope of the definition of words like nazi, racist or bigot. Anyway, carry on.
WTF, a million words. There is no defense for calling me a Nazi and it is inexcusable, even if you type 2 million words.
Actually you asked what Islamic music is. I posted the wiki article. Then you created those scenarios in your head that I was trying to defend people and correlate it to be-headings. So much hate in you bro
LOL at you, basso. L--full stop. O--full stop. L--full stop. I don't care which particular flavor of intervention you are advocating (more likely parroting). Preemptive strikes, no-fly zones, intelligence operations, aid interventions--none of these come without risks. Much of what I've posted directly answers your point, anyways, but you are too much of a chicken**** to risk exposing your vast ignorance in an intelligent discussion.
True on fighter jets, less true on tanks, rocket launchers, artillery, etc. Anyway, I think air-strikes is a worthwhile subject to debate without trying to twist it into some kind of bash on Obama. Obama unilaterally deciding on airstrikes or any other military intervention is probably a bad idea. It's slow, but some kind of coalition action is necessary. This isn't Obama dithering. From what they are saying now, Gaddafi still has some popular support from his own tribe and one other privileged tribe. But each of those has 1m people in a country with a total population of 6.4m. It looks to me more like a civil war than the revolution it initially looked to be. How loyal are these 2m people? I don't know, but it can get very bad. We never liked Gaddafi anyway and I'm sure we won't mind if he's gone, but do we want to be picking sides in a civil/tribal war if it ends up going that way? So, obviously I'm conflicted. I'm pissed about attacks on civilians and want to stop it, but I know it's more complicated than that.
i would just note that you're calling me a chicken**** in a post where you decry the lack of intelligent discussion.
It looks like a rout of the rebels might be on with Ras Anouf falling. While France is recognizing the rebel government as the legitimate government and even Arab states saying Gadaffi is losing legitimacy all of that might be meaningless if Gadaffi crushes the rebellion. This is starting to look a lot like Southern Iraq1991 all over again.
