SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: LindyBill who wrote (89936)12/9/2004 6:15:20 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) of 793957
 
But aside from middle eastern immigrants in western countries, this ideology has close to no support anywhere outside the Muslim world. As an ideology it controls at best a few small states; and it has possible access to Pakistan's small nuclear arsenal. But where is the danger of the Islamist takeover of any of the world’s great powers? China? The US? Europe? India? Japan? Brazil? Will Germany or Canada becomes ‘finlandized’ by Islamist power? That doesn’t mean the danger doesn’t exist, only that it’s different. And those are fundamental differences we shouldn’t ignore

Josh is talking about a difference in degree, not in kind. Is he really saying that just because today's Islamo-fascists don't have a nuclear arsenal that could destroy America, it's okay if large swathes of the Democratic Party are seen to support them, at least to the extent of being "objectively pro-Fascist," to quote Owrwell, sometimes apologizing for them because they are "oppressed", and sometimes giving them out-and-out support, as Michael Moore did when he called the Ba'athist insurgents of Fallujah the equivalent of the Minute Men?

Is that Josh's "fundamental difference"? These fascists don't have a nuclear arsenal, so no harm done to support them?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext