In last night's Republican presidential debate at the Reagan Library, former Massachusetts Mitt Romney added Osama Bin Laden to his rapidly growing list of flip-flops. By alternately downplaying or emphasizing the importance of capturing Bin Laden as political circumstances require, Romney finds himself in good company - with President Bush.

For the details, see:
"Romney Joins Bush, Flip-Flops on Bin Laden."

It's hard for Mitt to keep all these weird religious groups straight. Why can't they be something normal?

Ah Kevin. The point of being a successful GOP candidate is to grunt often and carry a big stick. This kind of obsession with the actual details of, like, reality n stuff is for wimps.

The real point is to cover for Rigged-publican Commandeer-in-Chief's ShRove's failure to capture Bin Laden, esp. the missed opportunity at Tora Bora.

Yes, there's a violent jihadist movement, but it doesn't include the Muslim Brotherhood, which is Islamist but not terrorist.

Wrong Kevin. The Brotherhood supports jihad against infidels including Americans and Israel.

Discover the Network Link

"the Brotherhood since its founding has supported the use of armed struggle, or jihad. The Brotherhood supports the waging of jihad against non-Muslim "infidels," and has expressed support for terrorism against Israel, whose legitimacy the Brotherhood does not recognize, and against the West, particularly the United States."

You don't get into the particularly priceless stupidity of the very first thing that Romney brings up, namely, "This is about Shi'a and Sunni." -- clearly lumping them in with all the other bad brown people.

I mean, the very "democratic" government of Iraq Bush has been trying to install is composed of Shi'a and Sunni.

So the point of the Iraq war was to put in power our terrorist enemies?

What a breathtaking cretin! Really, I don't think that even Bush, I mean, even Bush, would come out with such sheer idiocy.

Nice try Al, now how about something other than a wingnut site that conflates all Islamic groups as jihadists.

What I think you're missing is that to a significant portion of the GOP base--George W Bush first among them--there is only one Enemy, The Evil One, and Sunni and Shi'a and Muslim Brotherhood and Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are just different masks he wears in this war against the Chosen People. These are people who think Beslan justified the invasion of Iraq.
In their minds, we're living through the seventh book of the Narnia Chronicles (The Last Battle?), but I don't think their worldview is quite that sophisticated.

Whether Romney is that stupid or that cynical to play along with this, I'm not sure. But this isn't gonna hurt him at all with the voters he's after.

Once again I think Romney is talking to the faithful (I don't mean Mormons, I mean hard core Republicans).

It is an article of faith, with them, that we are at war with the people who will create a 'new Caliphate' and that we may be forced into a war of total destruction (even down to nuclear weapons).

Bush uses the words 'Islamo-fascism' and 'the Caliphate' a lot. In fact, one of the declassified National Security Council briefings on Iraq and the Middle East used it.

They don't distinguish between Shia and Sunni, in this, let alone between Al Quaida and the Moslem Brotherhood, or Hamas and Hizbollah. They see that kind of distinction as liberal sophistry, once again leaving America undefended in the face of its greatest enemy (as we did on 9-11).

It's quite in their conception that Baathist Syria, Shia Iran and Al Quaida (and even Saudi Arabia) are all together in a giant conspiracy against the United States.

Try to explain the difference, to a right wing American in the 1950s, between a Socialist Party and a Communist one. Or between Euro-Communists like the Italian communist party of the 1970s, and Stalinist parties like the British Revolutionary Communist Party.

So, Kevin, I think there is a coded conversation going on out there, and we are just not understanding it, because we don't understand the coded language.

Rather like Bush's use of Dredd-Scott (sp?) during the Bush-Kerry debates, to allude to abortion.

Romney is once again proving himself to be very shrewd.

"Unfortunately, like I said, nobody seems to care."

Nobody who votes Republican cares. People who vote for Democrats, otoh, care a lot.

Besides the fact that "jihad" has a very wide range of meanings beyond the only one you see implied in the western press, the man's a fool.

But hey, par for the course. Here are three more wingnuts for president

So is it that there is one uniquely evil person, Osama bin Laden, and that if we get him, the GWOT will be over and we can stop spending billions of dollars on airport security etc.? No, that's not it. Is it that there is one uniquely evil ideology, a Sunni, Wahhabi-tinged fanaticism, and that if we get rid of that, the GWOT will be over? No, that's not it. One unique organization, al Qaeda? No, still wrong. In fact, there are a variety of Islamist ideologies and organizations that embrace those ideologies who wish us ill and will make terrorist attacks on us when they can. Which is, in fact, about what Romney probably (I didn't watch the debate or read the transcript) was saying.

But Spencer Ackerman gets his point exactly backward, and, most grossly, so does Romney.

It was Republicans Who tried to make it all about one guy and for years it was Democrats who were saying it was more complicated than that.

Romney is trying to turn history backward.

This is something Republicans do all the time. Two months after Democrats start pointing something out Republicans will try to steal the rhetoric and confuse the issue.

Romney is actually saying these are separate things, and that is exactly what we've been saying since 2001, and he's trying to turn the last six years of Republican bullshit backward.

Well, he's talking about foreigners, and Repubs know that they are all essentially bad--much like the majority of Americans these days. It's haaaard being right all the time, especially when you are so fucking wrong about everything. (Just ask Al.)

Mitt? He can catch a baseball in his mouth?

By the way, the State Department called Iran the biggest supporter of terror. How is that when the Iraqis ovberwhelmingly blow up more people?

Do they mean that Iran is big in terms of money spent on terror? Do they spend more than our own CIA in torturing people?

Mitt is an idiot, yes.

Romney is going to get a lot of credit for his comments. There are a lot of Americans who don't do nuance. To them all the groups he mentioned want to kill us. In fact a lot of Americans think all Muslims want to kill all Christian and Jewish men and rape their women.

Folks, there are a lot of Americans, and not just Republican Americans who think we are in the middle of a holy war started by Islam. Our choices are to utterly kill them all, or retreat into fortress America.

The administration and the media have done little to dissuade Americans of that view. Every jihadists attrocities is front and center on the news and on the lips of the commander guy. It's easy for Americans to think the way they do.

Yes their is a lot of opposition to the Iraq war, but a lot of that opposition is based on the conclusion that we are killing the wrong arabs.

Sorry to sound such a harsh note, but you have to realize that Romney is not stupid. He knows his audience.

By the way, I don't think there are that many jihadists, and I don't believe we are in a holy war. Modern media give a relative handful of jihadists the opportunity to have an impact all out of proportion to their actual numbers. This is especially true since the current administration and the media exploit their atrocities for their own purposes. Be afraid, be very afraid.

Romney buys into the simplistic view that Islam is monolithic. See John Esposito's book, The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality? for a thorough debunking of this false thinking.

Fred S. I don't know if Romney buys into the simplistic notion or not, but he is sure selling it. Then again so are a lot of politicians.

RB: "...you have to realize that Romney is not stupid. He knows his audience."

Just because he knows them doesn't mean he is smart. Battlefield Earth?

come off it guys, (that includes frankly0 and Kevin),

one minute answers to complex questions never look good written on paper. and they shouldn't be judged that way.

he said that one aspect was the conflict between Sunni and Shia (um, frankly0, he was distinguishing them, not conflating them)....and then went on to illustrate the complexity of the problem by listing different groups. then he attempted to sum it up with a theme in the last five seconds the format gave him. sure, it doesn't work perfectly on close analysis...but it was 1 minute debate answer for frick's sake.

just listen to yourselves...do you really want to apply this microscope to every utterance by Hillary or Obama? (yes, some conservatives do it)

Romney and the other Republican candidates understand that Americans want a president who will pursue all our enemies, not just the poster boys. Americans are too sophisticated to swallow the democrat appeasement policy.

to be precise, Romney was saying the exact opposite of what you guys are reading him as saying:

he was pointing out that Islam is not monolithic.

"Americans are too sophisticated to swallow the democrat appeasement policy."

And who could be more sophisticated than thou, you bon vivant you! Got your kevlar tuxedo yet, o brave warrior? Or are you too busy swallowing something else?

Allow me to go way out on a limb here to suggest a theory of where we stand.

I believe that in the mid-1970s when OPEC controlled oil supply (and thus prices) and jerked us around but good, the Carter administration devised a plan for the Middle East where the Israeli Jews and the (primarily) Muslim world around them could live peacefully.

In that plan America showed it was a fair broker in both the Palestinian-Israeli discussions as well as in other economic issues. Even more than that we showed we could be friendly to the Muslim world. We helped them push the Soviets out of Afghanistan (beginning in Carter's time) and we assisted them in Kosovo (Clinton wanted to help in Bosnia, but was resisted). We were making enemies into friends in the best Christian way.

Fortunately this also had a great effect economically. Instead of fighting OPEC we had friends in the Middle East and they adjusted their oil production which helped our economy zip along in the 1990s.

This did not sit well with Republicans.

How were they to make money from scarce oil if there was plenty of it at reasonable prices?

So, they turned the Middle East into a hotbed of terrorists and jihadists just waiting to slit the throat of anyone they could get their hands on, starting even before 9/11.

Of course it's likely Saddam Hussein, despite not being seriously into Islam or a radical of any kind, was probably selling enough oil on the black market to keep us happy. So, he had to go! There was no way the Big Oil companies could control supply if he was shipping it illegally. He had to go!

Where does this leave us now?

Dems want peace and prosperity.
Repubs want war forever!
The public gets to choose which it wants.

Why is it that such dangerously ignorant ego maniacs put themselves up to be the leader of 300 million people? What is wrong with this picture? Has the public failed to learn the lesson here? NO MORE UNINFORMED, MISINFORMED INTELLECTUALLY UNCURIOUS AND DISHONEST LEADERS NEED APPLY.

Nathan,

I wasn't asserting that Romney was conflating Shi'a and Sunni with each other. I was saying that he was lumping them into all bad brown people.

I suggest you re-read his actual comment, to restore the context:

I don't want to buy into the Democratic pitch, that this is all about one person, Osama bin Laden. Because after we get him, there's going to be another and another. This is about Shi'a and Sunni. This is about Hezbollah and Hamas and al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is the worldwide jihadist effort to try and cause the collapse of all moderate Islamic governments and replace them with a caliphate.

The point is, ALL of the groups he mentioned are bracketed on BOTH sides, before and after, with sentences that make it clear he has in mind to be talking about terrorists, or at minimum, jihadists.

That is, before he mentions all the groups, he says,

I don't want to buy into the Democratic pitch, that this is all about one person, Osama bin Laden. Because after we get him, there's going to be another and another.

And after he lists all the groups, he says,

This is the worldwide jihadist effort to try and cause the collapse of all moderate Islamic governments and replace them with a caliphate.

Those two bracketing comments are the ONLY context in which to understand what he said.

Only willful deception or complete incompetence would enable Romney to utter that list in that context.

The real point is to cover for Rigged-publican Commandeer-in-Chief's ShRove's failure to capture Bin Laden, esp. the missed opportunity at Tora Bora.

That wasn't a failure. If OBL had been captured or killed at TB, it would have been many times more difficult for GWB to get his jihad on in Iraq. OBL is alive and at large because GWB needed OBL alive and at large.

he said that one aspect was the conflict between Sunni and Shia

No. What he said is:

This is about Shi'a and Sunni.

Nice try, counselor, but he made no reference to any conflict between them.

frankly0, your presumption (if only for the sake of argument) that Nathan was commenting in good faith, let alone that his analysis magically transformed suddenly into something actualyl worth more than a bucket of piss, is cute. :)

he said that one aspect was the conflict between Sunni and Shia (um, frankly0, he was distinguishing them, not conflating them)....and then went on to illustrate the complexity of the problem by listing different groups.

That interpretation, as well being a strained interpretation which is not a natural reading of the actual words used, suggests that he was arguing that al-Qaeda is a "different group" from "the worldwide jihadist effort to try and cause the collapse of all moderate Islamic governments and replace them with a caliphate", which has its own problems.

Its possible, though, that he was neither conflating nor distinguishing things, but was instead just articulating a bunch of words and phrases he knew had something to do with the conflict, without saying anyhing about how they all fit together. That's actually the only interpretation that isn't ridiculously strained that doesn't suggest a gross mistake of fact. But that doesn't exactly demonstrate a keen grasp of the situation, either.

"Its possible, though, that he was neither conflating nor distinguishing things, but was instead just articulating a bunch of words and phrases he knew had something to do with the conflict, without saying anyhing about how they all fit together."

in a sense, that's exactly what he was doing...CAUSE THAT'S ALL THE TIME AND FORMAT ALLOWED.

parsing anyone's answers in written form within that format is ridiculous.

(if you watched it it was immediately clear he was distinguishing Sunni and Shia)

Ah, Kevin.

Milt has it about right.

This is the nature of Islamofasciscm. Its all encompassing.

(if you watched it it was immediately clear he was distinguishing Sunni and Shia)

Yeah, he made the secret Mormon sign for "distinguish", which the transcript does not capture, when he said "Shi'a and Sunni".

egbert, how deep is your understanding of islam? And by the way, if any dynamic can actually be described as Islamofascism, that would be the state of Saudi Arabia, where corporate, state and religious interests are all tied up together, each leg of the stool interdependent on the other two.

But you are such a stellar mind, you know that, right?

Nice try Al, now how about something other than a wingnut site that conflates all Islamic groups as jihadists. Posted by: Dr. Morpheus

Damn straight. What a fuckwit. There were articles in the NYT Magazine last Sunday and in the previous issue of Foreign Affairs about the bad rap the Brotherhood has gotten.

Mitt sounds like an idiot for another reason also. No one has suggested that we catch OBL because that would magically cure terrorism. You catch him because (a) he was an accessory to killing 3000 people on our soil, and (b) he may plan or contribute to future Al Qaida attacks (if he isn't sick or dead).

parsing anyone's answers in written form within that format is ridiculous.

So no fair analyzing what they actually said? I guess it really is all about the haircuts.

This is about Shi'a and Sunni. This is about Hezbollah and Hamas and al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

This is about anyone who isn't us.

I guess tolerence is out and kill em all is in this year. Wonder what colors that comes in, besides red.

Fortunately this also had a great effect economically. Instead of fighting OPEC we had friends in the Middle East and they adjusted their oil production which helped our economy zip along in the 1990s.

This did not sit well with Republicans.

Somewhere along the line you forgot about the first Gulf War, which truly was about nothing but oil.

How were they to make money from scarce oil if there was plenty of it at reasonable prices?

Define "reasonable."

So, they turned the Middle East into a hotbed of terrorists and jihadists just waiting to slit the throat of anyone they could get their hands on, starting even before 9/11.

Care to document this?

Of course it's likely Saddam Hussein, despite not being seriously into Islam or a radical of any kind, was probably selling enough oil on the black market to keep us happy. So, he had to go! There was no way the Big Oil companies could control supply if he was shipping it illegally. He had to go! Posted by: MarkH

This paragraph contradicts itself. We went through a huge economic expansion in most of the industrialized world in the mid- to late-1990s without much Iraqi oil in the market, and in any case, Iraq has been producing well under its capacity for decades. Furthermore, Cheney's former employer still had contracts in Iraq and Iran after the first Gulf War. Seems to me everyone was making plenty of money.

You are over thinking this. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al had wanted war with Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War. Wolfowitz gave Cheney the plans for what became the 2003 Iraq invasion when they were both still in Bush the Elder's administration.

Now, however, in Shrub they had a willing Oedipal accomplice. OBL, unwittingly and serendipitously provided the neocons the cover they needed to invade Iraq and magically transform the ME into a garden of Democracy. The rest, as we all know, was a web of lies involving Iraqi weapons and intentions.

in a sense, that's exactly what he was doing...CAUSE THAT'S ALL THE TIME AND FORMAT ALLOWED.

No, he could have said a lot more, and a lot more clearly, with fewer words and in less time, if he had a coherent idea in his brain about the conflict to start with.

If his statement was devoid of any coherent message, it is not the format's fault.

(if you watched it it was immediately clear he was distinguishing Sunni and Shia)

I watched every second of the debate, and on that question, it seemed more like he was spouting a bunch of vague references without a clear thesis.

Only willful deception or complete incompetence would enable Romney to utter that list in that context.

Why the "or" when an "and" is much more appropriate?

And speaking of haircuts,

is there a term to describe that very short but not a buzzcut corporate Republican hairdo that looks like it was cut to look like it was applied with software?

Like a claymation character from the 60s?

parsing anyone's answers in written form within that format is ridiculous.

So the candidates "debate", but we're not allowed to write about or analyse anything they say?

While I suppose this is a standard that Nathan, proud graduate of I Can't Believe It's a Law School!, would like to apply to his court appearances, I'm afraid it's not one that works in real life.

Not to mention that the candidates haven't been prepped to within an inch of their lives on these issues and should know this stuff cold, no matter what the format is.

Why the "or" when an "and" is much more appropriate?
Posted by: Stefan
----------------------------------------------------

No, if someone is completely incompetent then they're incompetent to willfully deceive. Let's be fair and reasonable to the guy - you can't have it both ways.

Not just gibberish. This ain't the first time Romney has pooh-poohed capturing bin Laden. What if a Dem said that?

In the entire history of western democracy has there ever been an uglier group of candidates for anything?

These goons are hideous.

I can bloody well guarantee that the Shiites, at least, aren't trying to create a new caliphate, since the reason for the Sunni-Shiite split was that the Shiites didn't accept the authority of the caliphate. Would it be too much to ask for presidential candidates to grasp this sort of thing before babbling? Hell, what's next--the Northern Ireland Protestants plotting to expand the authority of the Pope?

Unfortunately, almost nobody seems to really care about this stuff, but as Spencer points out, this is completely wrong and demonstrates that Romney doesn't have a clue what we're up against. Yes, there's a violent jihadist movement, but it doesn't include the Muslim Brotherhood, which is Islamist but not terrorist. It's not about "Hezbollah and Hamas and al Qaeda," which have completely different goals.

the Muslim Brotherhood assassinated Anwar Sadat. Hezbollah, Hamas and al Qaeda have concordant, partially overlapping, goals and they work together.

Romney's closer to the truth than you are.

Suffice it to say that there is no caliphate on heaven or earth that will simultaneously satisfy Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, which goes a long way toward explaining why there is no concerted "worldwide jihadist effort" by these groups to establish one.

That is not "sufficient". They all have a common enemy that they work against in collaboration. The "conerted worldwide jihadist effort" is to weaken and destroy modern European/American influence, restore a "pure" Islam and Sharia Law, and then possibly work toward a hegemonic caliphate. Read their rhetoric. Their first aim is to destroy European/American dominance.

Among all 1.3 billion Muslims, the number of such enemies may be in the millions, up to the lower hundreds of millions. They are only loosely confederated. They have multiple internal shcisms. Nevertheless, they have a common goal.

No, if someone is completely incompetent then they're incompetent to willfully deceive. Let's be fair and reasonable to the guy - you can't have it both ways.

I'm sorry, but George W. Bush is Exhibit A that I can.

The "conerted worldwide jihadist effort" is to weaken and destroy modern European/American influence, restore a "pure" Islam and Sharia Law, and then possibly work toward a hegemonic caliphate.

Again, as others have astutely pointed out above, you blithering moron, the Shia are no more trying to set up a caliphate than the Southern Baptists are trying to restore the primacy of the Pope over all Christians.

Stefan: I'm sorry, but George W. Bush is Exhibit A that I can.

Good point. Perhaps the new field of politico-physics can shed some light. My thinking is stuck in classical physics, but what we're seeing is more akin to a quantum mechanical effect. In such a statistical model it is, for example, possible to temporarily violate various conservation principles. On the bright side, the same models say that this can't go on forever.

That is not "sufficient". They all have a common enemy that they work against in collaboration.

False, they don't "all work together in collaboration." Simply, unequivocally false. And you can't begin to find cites that shows ALL these groups "collaborating."

And to the extent that they have a common enemy in Israel -- so? That doesn't in the least negate the point that there is no caliphate in which they could all get along.

You need to adjust some of the cartoons you use in your head to understand this stuff.

Their first aim is to destroy European/American dominance.

What does this sentence even mean? Dominance where? Over whom? This sounds like a snippet from a Bush press conference. Could you be any more vague?

Among all 1.3 billion Muslims, the number of such enemies may be in the millions, up to the lower hundreds of millions.

Nope, you're smoking crack again. There probably aren't many more than 200,000 militants all told in Iraq on ALL sides, and most of those are just nationalists. The group there seeking "world domination" probably numbers in the dozens or hundreds at best, arguably the same number of loonies seeking to control the world that you'd find at a conference for neoconservatives.

Way to slime Muslims, though. What a parochial, bigoted, xenophobic creep.

Nevertheless, they have a common goal.

No they don't. You're in cartoon land again. Hamas doesn't want worldwide domination, the Taliban don't want worldwide domination, the Taliban hate the Iranian extremists -- who don't want worldwide domination, by the way -- Sunni Al Qaeda and Shi'ite Iranian Mullahs don't get along. Hell, right now the three main Shia factions in Iraq are engaged in both a political and a violent struggle with one another...and the Sunni Islamic Iraqi Nationalists are engaged against the secular Sunni Baathists. Do you have even the slightest grip on the facts? Hellooooo.

Get a grip. Take a cold shower, have a stiff drink, go for a walk in the park, enjoy the flowers, and take comfort in the newfound knowledge that hundreds of millions of Muslims aren't plotting to kill you.

And let me just add that this blog, besides being a venue for expressing your man-crush on Bush, seems also to be a forum for airing your phobias and unwarranted existential fears.

I'm no expert but I'm guessing you'd get better results by sitting down with a trained therapist.

Romney would fuck a dog on national TV if he thought it would help him with the fascists

Romney et al are just following the advice of the very famous wingnuts who made the following statements:

"The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belong to one category."

"The art of leadership... consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention"

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

Where have I heard this before?

Oh, yeah. The 'yellow menace' crap that was so popular from the 20's right up to the end of the Vietnam War.

Conflating all Islamic groups under a simplistic and derogatory heading like "Islamofascists" is intellectually contemptible. As someone here correctly pointed out, there are about 1.3 billion Muslims, with many, many organizations, websites, newspapers, and media outlets. Some organizations support jihadist activities, many don't.

Painting all Islamist groups with one brush is like viewing all Marxist, communist and socialist groups in the 60s and 70s as part of some monolithic Red Menace. It's not that simple, and it requires a little reading (of sources knowledgeable on the topic, not Hannity's or Rush's ilk) to make some informed distinctions.

So sad that it's too complicated for our winger friends.

OTOH (and far from me to ever agree with Al) I think the Muslim Brotherhood is such an important prototypical Islamist organization, that it was instrumental in the development of many, many present-day Islamic groups and leaders, some of whom support violence. The Muslim Brotherhood was a major catalyst in the development of modern Islamist thought, especially in Egypt. One former Egyptian member is Ayman al-Zawahiri. He has terrorist ties. Many others do not. Obviously SOME (not all, not even most) persons and groups influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood are now involved in jihadist activities. Not the same as saying the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist group.

But gibberish is gibberish, no matter how good your haircut is.

But gibberish is all they have, especially Romney.
Fer Christ's sake, the man's a Mormon! Ever take a look a what they believe?

Spencer Abraham: Mitt Romney's War: the total conflation of all Islamist movements. Not only is the Muslim Brotherhood not a jihadist organization, but its very lack of jihadiness is what spawned Ayman Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Suffice it to say that there is no caliphate on heaven or earth that will simultaneously satisfy Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, which goes a long way toward explaining why there is no concerted "worldwide jihadist effort" by these groups to establish one.

Sorry, I don't buy Abraham's view of the separateness of these various groups. He focuses on the groups' stated current justification for violence, which do differ somewhat. I focus on their actual behavior, which shows a number of key similarities, including:

-- use of ruthless violence
-- suicide bombers
-- not following any of the accepted rules of warfare (uniforms, POW treatment, torture, attacks on civilian and religious targets, etc.)
-- Islamic
-- anti-Semitic
-- anti-western

Sure, Hamas, al Qaeda, Fatah, etc. have their differences, but it seems to me that they have so many key aspects in commen that it's appropriate to view them as part of one big menace.

Perhaps a parallel is the rise of fascism in the 1930's. German fasism, Italian fascism, and Japanese fascism were quite different from each other. Nevertheless it was correct to view the rise of fascism as a single problem and fight all three simultaneously.

This parallel is particularly apt because Islamic terrorism includes many aspects of fascism. In a way it's more threatening than fascism, because in includes a powerful, unifying religious element.

P.S. Note also that the imposition of democracy by the the US and our allies permanentaly ended the power of fascism in Germany, Italy, and Japan. That historical precedent shows the wisdom of Bush's efforts to impose democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan and to encourage democracy in other middle eastern countries.

ex-liberal, the Germans, the Italians and the Japanese were all openly and explicitly in an alliance with each other. Fatah is based more on Marxism than on radical Islam and actually engages in armed combat with Hamas. Hezbollah and Hamas sometimes work together, but against Israel and its occupation, not against the US today. Al-Qaeda is a worldwide group that is currently focused on the "far enemy" while all of the other groups you list are focused on the "near enemy." If Nixon had listened to people like you, he would have never have gone to China and we would have wasted decades fighting a Sino-Soviet Bloc that would have existed only in American imaginations. Germany and Japan had also been democracies during the Weimar Republic and Taisho democracy. Also, nobody here is arguing against going into Afghanistan. We did not so much impose democracy in Germany and Japan as help to restore it, which does not have potential parallels in the Arab world outside of Lebanon. Radical Islam a la bin Laden is not fascist in that it is not based on iron triangles between the bureaucracy, the party and the state as the basis for society, but instead the Caliphate and shari'a. You have no idea what you're talking about ever.

German, Italian and Japanese types of fascism - You forgot to add Prescott Bush to that list. Hey, there are still strains of that which exist even today in each country.

Yeah, little FAUX Lib is sooo afraid - Why, don't you just list all of them under a single heading, of say, SPECTRE - Then, Bond will have something to concentrate upon. Or, you can enlist and become the Caped Crusader Rabbitt.

Excellent choice of words, FAUX Lib.

"Impose democracy" - Yes, the hubris of an arrogant colonizer - "You will have Democracy and you will Love It" - Of course, as a true colonizer, one only allows leaders to be elected who fits the interests of the colonizer - Therefore, when the purple fingers select one such as Jaafari, who does not fit the bill, then the colonizer steps in and changes the leadership - When the next one does not kow-tow to his wishes, he spreads rumors of coups.

We are a Colonizer, not a Democracy Maker. Iraq has no operable government - We designed the laws, oh, yes, we "let the people vote", and we run the joint. Then, we step back and blame them for taking charge of their "Imposed Destiny".

Ah, for the days of a Republic to return in this land - Caesar has ruled tooooo long.

Realilty Man: Hezbollah and Hamas sometimes work together, but against Israel and its occupation,.

They work together against Israel's very existance.

Al-Qaeda is a worldwide group that is currently focused on the "far enemy"

True. But, a terrorist group can change their current goals. E.g., might Hamas or Hezbollah choose to attack the US as well as Israel? Some Experts think so.

Reality Man wrote: Radical Islam a la bin Laden is not fascist in that it is not based on iron triangles between the bureaucracy, the party and the state as the basis for society, but instead the Caliphate and shari'a.

I agree, Reality Man, they are not identical. But, there are ominous similarities. According to dictionary.com, Fascism is

"a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

Like fascism, Radical Islam is a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, and emphasizing aggressive racism (or, more precisely, emphasizing enormous religious bigotry.)

Unlike fascism, Radical Islam does not regiment all industry, commerce, etc., and it also has the religious element you mention.

I think the similarities should lead us to view the rise of radical Islam as parallel to the rise of fascism. Those who want to learn from history should recall that our tardy response to the rise of fascism led to WW2, which cost tens of millions of lives. Let's not make the same mistake with radical Islam.

-- use of ruthless violence
-- suicide bombers
-- not following any of the accepted rules of warfare (uniforms, POW treatment, torture, attacks on civilian and religious targets, etc.)
-- Islamic
-- anti-Semitic
-- anti-western

That's funny, one of my Muslim friends was saying to me just recently how he consider Western countries to be collaborating against Muslims in one giant "Blue Menace." He pointed out:

-- use of ruthless violence and the world's largest war machine to kill directly and indirectly hundreds of thousands of people in an illegal war based on false evidence
-- B17 bombers
-- not following the accepted rules of warfare (torture, POW treatment, attacks on civilian and religious targets and journalists, imprisoning people with evidence, hearings, or trials, torture again)
-- Christianist
-- anti-Muslim
-- anti-Middle Eastern

I have to admit, there is a definite pattern there.

Like fascism, Radical Islam is a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, and emphasizing aggressive racism (or, more precisely, emphasizing enormous religious bigotry.)

No it doesn't. The many different stripes of "Radical Islam" have an endlessly divergent number of clerics who disagree on mostly everything, to the point where they fight and kill one another (Taliban vs. SCIRI, Al Qaeda vs. Mahdi Army, Fadhila vs. Badr, etc.). There is no Muslim pope.

Further, Muslims aren't racist. To the contrary, Islam is an inclusive religion that accepts, Blacks, Asians, Caucasians -- anybody. You should never have agreed to try Marler's crack. As for their religious bigotry, it's no worse than radical Christianity or radical Judaism.

So to sum up: you're just absolutely fantastically utterly wrong about this.You think like a ten year old and your breadth of knowledge and grasp of the issues aren't any better.

IOW -- you're so fucking stupid it hurts.

trex,
"To the contrary, Islam is an inclusive religion that accepts, Blacks, Asians, Caucasians -- anybody." Aren't all the major religions inclusive as long as you accept their tenents? The difference, more to the religious bigotry description, is that most religions teach you to love your neighbor without qualifications, radical Islam is love your Muslim neighbor and don't care (and in some cases kill) your other neighbors. And get reworded in heaven for it.

"As for their religious bigotry, it's no worse than radical Christianity or radical Judaism." Only that there are a whole lot more radical Muslims than either radical Christians or Jews. And that when radical Jews and Christians commit these acts, they are condemned by the mainstream. And there is not a general funding and support of schools that teach the radical and violent ways. Other than that, i guess its just the same.

It's also enlightening to know that you can see the difference between suicide bombings and the types of wars the US has been fighting. The US does not seek out and target innocents as a suicide bomber does. The US does not typically seek out and destroy religious targets even when the enemy takes up positions there.

Back in the 80's, you would have been one of those people saying that Communism is fine, just a different system. Nothing wrong with it, just different. We should just learn to get along with it. Don't call it evil...

So to sum up: you're just absolutely fantastically utterly wrong about this.You think like a ten year old and your breadth of knowledge and grasp of the issues aren't any better.

It's also enlightening to know that you can see the difference between suicide bombings and the types of wars the US has been fighting. The US does not seek out and target innocents as a suicide bomber does. The US does not typically seek out and destroy religious targets even when the enemy takes up positions there.

You missed the point, which is from the perspective of someone in the Middle East whose family has been blown to smithereens by an American or American-made bomb, the evidence is clear that Americans are "out to get them."

As for the difference between "the types of wars that Americans have been fighting," when you're blown up by an American mortar or clusterbomb or cruise missile that has targeted "insurgents in your area," it doesn't feel any different than being blown up by a suicide bomber -- and the good intentions of your American liberators count for nothing when your family is in pieces in front of you on the floor.

This mindless violence only begets worse violence.

What types of wars have Americans been fighting recently? Well, let's see:

Wars based on false stories and ginned up "evidence" (remember the mushroom clouds over our cities? The sinister drones that would kill us in our sleep?);

Wars against countries that didn't attack us and complied with inspections (remind me, is that legal?);

Wars that are bankrupting our treasury and "breaking our military" according to its finest experts;

and wars that are ruining our standing with the world community, destroying our reputation in the very region we're trying to stabilize, and creating more terrorists than ever would have sprouted on their own.

Take the American flag blinders off Dave and see what's really going on. It's OK to call things evil if you're ready to take a hard look at yourself and your own culture to see what in it is thoughtless, merciless and evil toward its own and others. It's OK to call things evil if you're prepared to see what's good in them as well, and where the good has gone awry.

But to raise the flag of self-righteousness and beginning indiscriminately killing people you don't have the first fucking clue about is the height of evil, with a healthy dose of stupidity.

radical Islam is love your Muslim neighbor and don't care (and in some cases kill) your other neighbors. And get reworded in heaven for it.

??? Christianity has advocated and executed the same thing for fourteen centuries. History much? And today Pat Robertson and his ilk pray for a world war in the ME so Jesus will come back, and uses their not-insignicant influence to make it happen. And they get their wars in the comfort of their mansions reading Business Week by simply buying politicians.

Christian Identity guys hole up with guns and bombs and waiting for the moment to strike, homegrown terrorists blow up Federal Buildings and bomb abortion clinics.

The thing is they have plenty to eat and Playstation 2 so they're not as active. Let a foreign power begin invading their country and fucking with their government and let's see how quickly they put down Halo 2 and grab for their semi-automatics.

"You missed the point, which is from the perspective of someone in the Middle East whose family has been blown to smithereens by an American or American-made bomb, the evidence is clear that Americans are "out to get them.""
The fact that in a war people get blown to smithereens should not come as a surprise to anyone - it is part of the definition of war. There is plenty of killing going on in the ME, not just from Americans or their bombs. In Iraq, the US is doing little of the killing (and its not US bombs doing it). You are correct that dead is dead. But is there a difference between killing someone in self defense and killing someone in a pre-meditated hate crime? They are still dead. But we certainly think of the killer in a different way. Suicide bombing specifically targets innocent people. US bombings target (or try to target) the enemy or strategic things. There is a huge difference. Iraq did not comply with inspections, not for the several years when they allowed none in and not completely at the last minute.

"wars that are ruining our standing with the world community, destroying our reputation in the very region we're trying to stabilize, and creating more terrorists than ever would have sprouted on their own." This is the biggest myth out there - its been decades since the US had a standard to ruin. It's not that i think the US has been perfect, but every problem in the ME is conveniently put on the US, whether its deserved or not. The people of the ME refuse to deal with their own problems. On one hand all you hear is that there is a great need for US leadership. Then you hear about US meddling in ME affairs. The ME can't have it both ways. And for God's sake, could they at least try to solve just ONE STINKING PROBLEM on their own?

"Christianity has advocated and executed the same thing for fourteen centuries. History much?"
Let's come into the 21 century. I'll give you the crusades. Today, few people and few Christians cheered when abortion clinics or the Fed building got blown up. Few said, "well they deserve it". There was no school that was teaching people that this was the right thing to do. Nobody threw a celebration. What happened in the Arab and Muslim world after 9-11? The response was largly celebrations, the feeling that we deserved it or a don't care attitude since most killed were non-muslim. It was not the myth that everyone was an American that day.

If i was under a brutal dictator that was torturing me, gassing me or just plain mass murdering people, I'd be praying for someone to invade. The Iraqis did not mind us coming and getting rid of Saddam, but they do mind that we have screwed up the aftermath. To their discredit, they are not taking advantage of their chance. To our discredit, we have not given them a lot to work with.

Utterly and completely false. Please provide your cites that the majority of the Middle East was celebrating. You're regurgitating an urban legend. How can you even post this stuff with a straight face?

Suicide bombing specifically targets innocent people. US bombings target (or try to target) the enemy or strategic things. There is a huge difference.

No, there is a huge difference to you because it makes you feel good about what you're doing. It's not a huge difference to Iraqis. Our invasion was the catalyst for all the ensuing violence in a society that, because it was a police state, was largely free of violence.

Making you feel good about yourself or making you feel safer is not a legitimate reason for war, and even if we had the moral high ground -- which we don't -- continuing a course of action that is just creating more terrorists and people who hate us is, as I said before, utter fucking stupidity.

This is the biggest myth out there - its been decades since the US had a standard to ruin.

Read the international polls gauging American favorability ratings in the '90s, after 9/11 -- and then after the Iraq War. People used to love us and even our allies can't stand us now. Just because those measures of international opinion don't matter to you doesn't mean they aren't relevant, important, or happening.

If i was under a brutal dictator that was torturing me, gassing me or just plain mass murdering people, I'd be praying for someone to invade.

Well that's you. Other people feel differently. Did you ever stop to think that other people with difference cultures and history and language and values and desires might not choose the same thing as you???

And your brilliant synopsis of Iraqi society misses the other 90% of Iraqi life, which was pretty normal, or so my Iraqi friends tell me (well, except for the crushing sanctions we imposed on them).

And for God's sake, could they at least try to solve just ONE STINKING PROBLEM on their own?

Maybe if we not spent decades stopped propping up friendly dictators including Saddam, creating foreign policies that kept the "undesirable" masses oppressed so that we could have access to cheap oil, and invasions on the basis of false evidence -- they would solve some stinking problems on their own.

Actually they did solve at least one; Iranians overthrew their Shah and installed a government they wanted.

And by the way, who the fuck are you that you thing you have the authority to go "solve problems" in a sovereign country?

Iraq did not comply with inspections, not for the several years when they allowed none in and not completely at the last minute.

Bullshit. Hans Blix who was managing the inspections says otherwise. He's on record saying that the U.S. and British governments hyped the threat in order to sell a war.

And if by "didn't comply" you're making the Bush argument that they couldn't prove that they DIDN'T HAVE something that they ACTUALLY DIDN'T HAVE, well -- prove you're not in possession of child pornography. We know you have it based on some Italian documents we have, and even though the police have searched your house they're going to keep searching because you're not accounting for the child pornography THAT WE KNOW YOU HAVE.

A sicko like you is obviously a threat to the community. I know the child porn exerts have said that you don't have any and the police aren't finding any, but that's because you're not in compliance. If you don't produce that stuff soon there are going to be consequences....

So now that you are on record for saying that you are ok with brutal dictatorships, mass murder and gassing of innocents, and fear and terror being used to keep the peace, i understand where you are coming from. A sicko like me does think that people don't deserve to or want to live under a brutal dictator hoping they don't look at someone the wrong way or vote incorrectly. If that is "cultural", then this sicko thinks that that culture needs correcting.

Who was celebrating? Palestinians, Lebanese, Saudis (until they cracked down on on them). Numerous article and opinions from all over the regions basically said "Sorry for your loss but you deserved it" or worse.

On suicide bombings vs US war - "there is a huge difference to you because it makes you feel good about what you're doing." It does not make me feel good either way. But since you can't seem understand the meaning of intent, i don't quite know how else to explain it to you.

Now to the gospel of Hans Blix. This would be the same Hans Blix that missed Iraq's nuclear program back in the 80's when he was with the IAEA. Then he was quoted as saying "It's correct to say that the IAEA was fooled by the Iraqis." Former chief weapons inspector Richard Butler admitted that in the past, Blix "turned a bit of a blind eye to some things that maybe he shouldn't have." Sweden's former deputy prime minister Per Ahlmark stated that Blix was "weak and easily fooled," "easily misled," and "a wimp." "I can think of few European officials less suitable for a showdown with Saddam." Blix is an incompetent bureaucrat. What he did say is that he had not found WMDs at the time of invasion but there were many questions and leads still out there. Blix was never going to find anything even if there was anything to find. And Saddam was never going to allow full and complete searches (after over 4 years of no searches).

"creating foreign policies that kept the "undesirable" masses oppressed so that we could have access to cheap oil" Oh yeah. We are the ones keeping people oppressed. How is that exactly - most of the regimes in the ME are oppressive and have been for decades or longer.

"And by the way, who the fuck are you that you thing you have the authority to go "solve problems" in a sovereign country?" A person that gives a damn when millions of people are trapped under brutal rule, killed by the thousands, tortured and brutalized. Whether its murdering 6 million Jews in Germany, 10s of millions of people in Russia, massacres in Darfur, or anywhere there are evil governments or brutal dictators, i do think something should be done. I just happen to believe that people everywhere have the god given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I guess that makes me one sick SOB.

Who was celebrating? Palestinians, Lebanese, Saudis (until they cracked down on on them). Numerous article and opinions from all over the regions basically said "Sorry for your loss but you deserved it" or worse.

No they weren't, not without cites, and cites that show a majority. Until then it's just you making it up. Yeah, I saw the video of the eight Palestinians whooping it up in the restaurant, too. That leaves just four hundred ninety-nine million Muslims to go before they were "largely celebrating" as you claimed.

A person that gives a damn when millions of people are trapped under brutal rule, killed by the thousands, tortured and brutalized. Whether its murdering 6 million Jews in Germany, 10s of millions of people in Russia, massacres in Darfur, or anywhere there are evil governments or brutal dictators, i do think something should be done. I just happen to believe that people everywhere have the god given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I guess that makes me one sick SOB.

First of all Mr. Literal, the "sicko" comment was part and parcel of the child porn scenario meant to illustrate a point. Work on those reading comprehension skills.

Secondly, you do not give one flying miserable fuck about brown people in the Middle East -- you know, the ones you said can't solve their own "stinkin' problems." Neither you nor the United States invaded Iraq to "save" it from Saddam. Quite the contrary, you and your fellow yellow cheerleaders were shitting their pants that Saddam was going to kill you in your sleep. This about disarming Saddam of his terrible, terrible (imaginary) weapons. This was never explicitly or implicitly a liberation -- until the stated purposes fell apart and nitwits like you needed a post hoc explanation for your titanic screwup.

Yes, terrible things happened in Iraq under Saddam and he was a miserable fuck. But as bad as thing were under Saddam they are a thousand times worse now. I know, because I grew up and socialized with and worked with and for Iraqis who had lived there and still traveled back and forth. He was a strongman but the Iraqis knew that without one the country would fall apart and daily life for most people was normal. Saddam's political opponents were tortured, and when the Kurds and the Shi'ites tried to overthrow his rule he retaliated in a brutal fashion. But back in the 70's and '80's Baghdad was prosperous, cosmopolitan, thriving, and secular.

If you really gave a shit about the Iraqis you would have not supported a war that has killed upwards of 600,000 of them, wounded a million more, and displaced three million more. We could have bought Iraq from Saddam and his sons at half the price we paid for this war. We could have sat down with representatives from all sides in advance and presented a plan to fairly divide the country.

We could have done all kinds of constructive things, but instead we disbanded the army so the members had no way to feed their families, didn't plan for post-invasion beyond guarding the Ministry of Oil, didn't allow the Iraqis their own free elections (which is why Jay Garner quit), took all the reconstruction jobs for Americans rather than give them to the locals who desperately needed them (boning both the Iraqis and the American taxpayers at the same time) and had a vague plan of installing Chalabi as a friendlier dictator.

You're attempts at painting yourself as a bleeding heart for the oppressed around the world are unconvincing when one minute you feel their pain and the next you say how much they suck for hating Americans.

Oh yeah. We are the ones keeping people oppressed. How is that exactly - most of the regimes in the ME are oppressive and have been for decades or longer.

Crack a history book, brainiac. We supported Saddam, we supported the Shah, we've supported the dictatorial Saudi monarchy, we've supported Hassan in Morocco, Ul-Haq in Pakistan, brutal leaders in Turkey, Egypt, Indonesia -- and that's just in the Middle East.

Your smear campaign against Hans Blix is beyond ridiculous. He was a bureaucrat? Don't bring that lame ass shit here. He was RIGHT, as the thousands of inspectors using millions of dollars to find weapons who came after him have attested to. He did his job, he got compliance, he got unfettered access apparently despite being handicapped by his bureaucratic proclivities. But I'm not a bureaucrat and even people like me knew were no WMD's just by following the evidence and the debunked intelligence right up to the invasion.

You apparently were too busy worrying about the plight of the poor, oppressed Iraqis to pay attention.