The Ba'athists were and are secular for the most part. Those in both Iraq and still in Syria are socialists, no doubt, but have absolutely no world domination platform of any kind, or if they do, it' has never been acted on so far.

As I've repeatedly pointed out, both Hussein and the two Assad's have put down numerous attempts at religious coup d'etat's by groups such as Al Queda and others.

You are, as usual, completely ignorant of these issues.

Invade Iran? Only if president Bush is not satisfied with securing the title of "worst president of our time", and wants to make a run at "worst president of all time."

Could happen, I guess. He's pretty ambitious.

Is it the economy or is it not finishing the war on terror in a 30 minute sitcom like fashion that you think will secure that perception in the history books?

wiki'ed this:

Fascist-derived ideologies in the Middle East such as the Kataeb Party, the Baath party, and the Syrian Social Nationalist Party have been explicitly secular, and have drawn their strongest support from minority groups in the Arab world which feared the consequences of an Islamist government. The founders of the SSNP, the Baath, and the Kataeb were all Christians, and the movements have tended to have their strongest Muslim support from religious minorities like the Sunni Arabs of Iraq or the Alawites of Syria."

Regarding "Islamofascism" :

Islamofascism is a neologism and political epithet used to compare the ideological or operational characteristics of certain modern Islamist movements with European fascist movements of the early 20th century, neofascist movements, or totalitarianism. Organizations that have been labeled Islamofascist include Al-Qaeda, the current Iranian government, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Hezbollah. None label themselves fascist, however, and critics of the term argue that associating the religion of Islam with fascism is both offensive and historically inaccurate. On the other hand, Daniel Pipes equates only militant Islamism to fascism. Thus Pipes and most others critics say they refer to a small number of Islamist zealots, including terrorist groups such as al Qaeda.

Hitler was a secularist too. The Baathist party began in association and inspiration of the Third Reich and Adolph Hitler. They did have visions of world domination, and if they didn't certainly fundamentalist Islam does. They both require political dictatorship. They both hate Jews. They both agree with you that America is the aggressor.
And I have beat your ass on this issue several times. Hussein himself had direct ties to fundamentalist Islamic terrorist organizations. He, in fact, had a Quaran written in his own blood and penned official documents giving honor to Allah.

"...finishing the war on terror..."

How exactly do you finish a 'war' on a word? Terror is not a state, a country, a race, a religion, a sect, cult, or even a readily identifiable person. Whose to say its finished?

Regarding "Islamofascism"
Of course, you're completely ignoring the actual definition of fascism

The essential ingredient to fascism is not any partnership with the corporate world. The essential ingredient to fascism is socialism and the necessary totalitarianism that it requires.

Hum, he promised a 30 second war and we are into the 2nd day.
We didn't finish with the bad guy who attacked us, but decided to go after a bully/blowhard in the local neighborhood for some unfounded reason.
Since removing him, we can't make the neighbors agree to anything. Funny thing, they have never seen eye to eye before.


Is there anything I missed?

The same types of critics that are trying to get "illegal alien" removed from public discourse. Those offended by the term "Islamofascist" have an axe to grind or a cause to support that is countered by the truth of the statement. Fundamentalist Islam, as well as secular Islam, are simply an Arab equivalent to Mussolini's brainchild.

THe actual defn. . . .too funny.

Yeah Mul, don't you know? . .. Fascism 'now' means Bushism .. therefore Islamofascism now must mean Christian Bushism. --try to keep up would ya. ;)

oh, and the leftist sub text is: "I am rubber you are glue....

such tools :rolleyes:

No, that's incorrect.

The Bush'ists are a type of fascist.

So you offer that under Hitler's regime, Hitler was controlled by the corporate interests?, or would you assume Hitler gave the execs an offer they couldn't refuse?...hmmm?

Your linked definition is simplisitic and self-serving, it is fallacious.

Yeah Pat . . sssssuuuurrrreeee . .. ..and Christians are Islamic. Don't you know about that link? --it makes them the same.:rolleyes:


fas·cism n. 1. Often Fascism.a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. 2. Oppressive, dictatorial control. [Italian fascismo, from fascio, group, from Late Latin fascium, neuter of Latin fascis, bundle.]

per; American Heritage Dictionary

Indeed, Glenn, that is the closest definition to fascism I have seen put forth.

edit: the "belligerent nationalism and racism" I think are byproducts of the European brand of fascism, not necessarily main ingredients...In the case of Islamofascism they are replaced by "irrational Islamism and religious bigotry."

Seems that definition would have fit the Shah of Iran more than current government.

Please...The Shah was an ally, not an enemy...Carter's legacy is the Iran we see today.

obtuse again. Whose talking about friend or foe?
The Shah was a tyrant in his own country. Just didn't have the belligerant nationalism in his psyche.

Compared to the present nutcases, that was a good thing.

Invade California not Iran...

Yeah, but like Saddam, he was our tyrant. [Un]Fortunately for the Shah, he didn't live long enough for the wind to blow the other direction.

Utter nonsense. Iran today is the legacy of US intervention beginning with Eisenhower and continuing through the disaster of shooting down the Iranian jetliner.

I'm quickly understanding why the American business today can't improve it's efficiency to a greater extent. It's because you guys are sitting around playing on the Pelican website instead of doing the actual work. You all should embarrassed at the least and when you boil it right down, it's called theft of services. So it is a criminal offense.

Invading Iran is a no win strategy. The gains are debatable but the sacrifices (on both sides) would arguably turn out colossal. It would turn a current breeze of anti-infidel feelings into a world wide hurricane of 4 billion Muslims hating us. Going out of their way (and already meager sense) putting forth a wave of terror and fear. Simply put - they will go apes.

I fear the buggers more than anything - severely islamophobic - but invading them will only result in even more crying mothers.

I am just guessing here, of course..


edit: 'islamophobic' - spell check: Sorry, no suggestions..:D

Uh, some of us are retired, some of us have the day off, and some of us have already put in our 40 for the week.

I guess you're unaware that US worker productivity has been increasing over the past several years.

You must be French :)

Speak for yourself, homey! :p

Work is overrated, anyway.

I'm retired! as well as some consulting. My time is my own and I pay all the bills. Business is done before yanking the crank.

I love how the left points to nationalism as somehow the strongest indicator of fascism. Like it [nationalism] is always a bad thing. They seem to forget communism (worse than fascism) was ultra-nationalistic. I think the left's knee jerk anti-Americanism and anti-patriotism is simply a reaction against American righteousness. They demonize American flag-waving, honest patriotism/nationalism, because they hate that this country is predominantly Christian and not as socialistic or Marxist as they would like...by painting America as fatally flawed they set the stage for a larger government solution, a slow creep towards the superfascism they call communism.

another obtuse strawman. should we expect anything else?

Another use of the word "obtuse" --should we expect anything else? :cool:

I've never done a days work in my life and I don't propose to start now....I did have a job once, but that was Union so it doesn't count...

Yanking the crank... :D

obtuse yanking the crank....
yanking your obtuse crank

either way, one must yank the crank.......

Right on.

But back to the original issue, invading Iran. All you lefties should worry, a lot, because you know who is in charge. The left must support this idea, invasion, because they think Bush is an idiot and only an idiot would invade Iran.

On the other hand only an idiot would wait until Iran gets the bomb. So the right must also support the idea. Iran could already have a bomb. It only took our country 3 years to develop the bomb and it had never been done before. We did not have modern tools and electronics to work with either, just slide rules and very crude instruments, no developed theory. To state that it will take Iran 5 or 10 years to make a bomb is just absurd or is it obtuse?.

War,war, war we must have war is the only mantra I see here.

Iran wants to transfer nuke tech to the wonderful world of the Sudan..

and the Saudis are looking to start building them too.


The dumb-asses, who think Iran's thumbing it's nose at the rest of the world is no big deal, ought to think HARD about what this means for proliferation of nuclear weapons.

(hint hint . ..Every oilrich sandbox will buy & build . .. and SELL all nuclear weapons.)

In a way it's Russia's way of negating US influence. They almost have a strangle hold on W Europe with their natural gas piping.

Russia can turn Iran into off mode anytime it wants just like China can with N Korea.