View Full Forums : Should countries be allowed to influence elections in foreign countries?


Gus Fifo
07-31-2004, 12:30 AM
http://www.georgebush.ca/

Being that the U.S. has a substantial role the foreign influence business, should other countries be allowed to influence American policies? I seem to remember the allegations of Chinese financial influence during the Clinton election. Now, the Canadians are after us. Personally, I do not favor isolationism over participation but some of our current foreign policies are definitely pushing the participation aspect a bit too far. Is American policy being dictated by business interests solely or is there a definite altruistic behavior on behalf of our leaders? I just think it is fair that if we continue to drive foreign reform movements that we should allow outside reform to affect us. If we do not want outside interference then we should stop foreign intervention as well.

As long as we have to participate in a world system of government, if one should choose to do so, then we must accept some solutions that do not promote U.S. interests or ideals. It is not possible to turn the whole world into a U.S. style of government and beliefs. Far easier, instead, to change U.S. social and political standards. Our influence and ability to handle foreign crises and issues is being taxed to the point of breaking right now. Any further extension of our will and might is going to leave us vulnerable to external or internal chaos. It is a nation no longer of the majority but a coalition of fractious minorities. Alliances are made and broken at the first sign of weakness. These members groups seek any way they can to gain an advantage. Foreign memberships are sometimes easier or more powerful to get than any domestically grown ones.




Dump the incumbents --- McCain/Powell 2004 ---

Fenmarel the Banisher
07-31-2004, 02:06 AM
So just because you don't agree with US foreign policy your willing to give our sovereignty over to foreign interests? Thats just scary. My answer to your question is no...hell no. In fact I don't really see why your so distressed. The U.S. has always been and still is a positive effect on the world. In the last 4 years we have removed the influence on the world of 2 evil despotic regimes. Conversely the world track record for taking action when needed has consistently fallen short. Personally I think it's in the U.S. and the Worlds best interest that we forge ahead and stay the coarse. We should ignore the chicken littles the nadiry neighbobs of negativity and acomplish the goal of whipping out islamo-fascist terror. Then move on to deal with the last hold out of communism China.

Incidently neither of the current big party cannidates are even talking about disengaging the U.S. from Iraq or even the War on Islamo-Facist Terror. The only thing they are quibbling over his how to complete these engagements. Don't get me wrong I don't think that the U.S. should step out and go it alone. Something we are not doing even now. There is something like 60+ countries with us in Iraq and more in Afghanistan but, as the Iron Laddy Margret Thatcher said, "Consensus is the absence of leadership." The U.S. is the leader in the world. This is something I do not doubt.

In 2 days I drive a friend of mine to the airport to fly to Texas. There he will be processing for a week before he goes to Kandahar,Afghanistan to work as an Electrician for Haliburton. I hope and pray that his time there is suscessful and that his contribution to the effort to rebuild that country will last for many years.

Scirocco
07-31-2004, 02:19 AM
the nadiry neighbobs of negativity


It took me a bit to figure out that you meant "nattering nabobs of negativism"...:)

Anka
07-31-2004, 06:20 AM
but, as the Iron Laddy Margret Thatcher said, "Consensus is the absence of leadership."

That is why the UK, Margaret Hilda Thatcher still divides our society. I think she was voted 'most hated woman in Britain' recently, even twenty years on; a penalty for leadership without consensus.

the War on Islamo-Facist Terror

What the heck is an islamo-facist? I don't really think Mussolini has a great deal in common with Al Quaida.

Just speaking as an outsider to the US, why are you worried about canadians corrupting your election by, horror of horrors, putting names on a petition? Isn't there far more influence coming from financial donations to your political parties that needs reigning in first?

Aidon
07-31-2004, 06:45 AM
So just because you don't agree with US foreign policy your willing to give our sovereignty over to foreign interests? Thats just scary. My answer to your question is no...hell no. In fact I don't really see why your so distressed. The U.S. has always been and still is a positive effect on the world. In the last 4 years we have removed the influence on the world of 2 evil despotic regimes. Conversely the world track record for taking action when needed has consistently fallen short. Personally I think it's in the U.S. and the Worlds best interest that we forge ahead and stay the coarse. We should ignore the chicken littles the nadiry neighbobs of negativity and acomplish the goal of whipping out islamo-fascist terror. Then move on to deal with the last hold out of communism China.

Incidently neither of the current big party cannidates are even talking about disengaging the U.S. from Iraq or even the War on Islamo-Facist Terror. The only thing they are quibbling over his how to complete these engagements. Don't get me wrong I don't think that the U.S. should step out and go it alone. Something we are not doing even now. There is something like 60+ countries with us in Iraq and more in Afghanistan but, as the Iron Laddy Margret Thatcher said, "Consensus is the absence of leadership." The U.S. is the leader in the world. This is something I do not doubt.

In 2 days I drive a friend of mine to the airport to fly to Texas. There he will be processing for a week before he goes to Kandahar,Afghanistan to work as an Electrician for Haliburton. I hope and pray that his time there is suscessful and that his contribution to the effort to rebuild that country will last for many years.

While I suspect that world Islam will indeed have a broad clashing with the West in the relatively near future (unfortunately the fanatical brand of islam which seems to be spreading throughout asia and africa is not a religion of toleration), it would be foolhearty of the US to attempt to force China from Communism.

A war with China would be as bad as a war with Russia ever would have been. While we are, no doubt, technologically their superior..they are a huge nation with a military which dwarfs ours numerically. Further, even should be prove victorious in a war with them, we are completely and utterly incapable of administrating or absorbing such a huge conquest.

The fact remains that Communism is still the best system China has yet had. There is no call for us to forcibly change them. Our policy, since Nixon first broke the political ice, is proving successful. China is slowly changing its ways. Within the next century I suspect China will have abandoned communism.

Unfortunately, for us, should China become a democratic free market society we'll no longer be the worlds superpower, I suspect.

There is, in my opinion, only one reason to war with China. That is if they decide Russia is weakened enough for them to invade Siberia. Under no circumstances should we ever permit China control of the natural resources there. Well three reasons I guess. We can't really allow them to invade S. Korea or Japan either.

As for the original post...foreign interests always have and always will play a role in our politics. It cannot be avoided. Likewise, we play a strong role in the politics of other nations (too strong a role in certain recent instances).

Aidon
07-31-2004, 06:52 AM
That is why the UK, Margaret Hilda Thatcher still divides our society. I think she was voted 'most hated woman in Britain' recently, even twenty years on; a penalty for leadership without consensus.



What the heck is an islamo-facist? I don't really think Mussolini has a great deal in common with Al Quaida.

Just speaking as an outsider to the US, why are you worried about canadians corrupting your election by, horror of horrors, putting names on a petition? Isn't there far more influence coming from financial donations to your political parties that needs reigning in first?


Actually Al Quaida has alot to do with Mussolini and fascism. Strong nationalistic tendacies with a the raising of the government to almost theopolitical levels (or in Al Quaida's case, purely theopolitical levels).

The main reason why there were not greater theological overtones to the fascist states of the 30's and 40's was because Europe, as a whole, had been undergoing a rather strong period of secularization after the rise amd prominence of 19th century philosophy and science.

Hitler was actually slowly building his own religion based heavily what he believed the pre-chistrian Teutonic beliefs were.

Gus Fifo
07-31-2004, 10:56 AM
It is not so much that I disagree with U.S. policy Fenmarel, it is just that it needs a bit more tweaking. I was trying to confine my arguement to the point of "fixing" elections of political leaders. Granted, the choice of leaders can directly affect military action or inaction. With all the fuss from the last presidential election results by our own voting laws can we afford to let international pressures or interests influence our political process. Should we influnce Palestinians to elect someone other than Arafat to lead their people or inflluence N. Koreans to elect someone else. My opinion is to let others choose their leaders and then we deal with or ignore them after they are chosen. How can we instill our ideas of democratic process if we interfere in their democratic process. We can install "friendly" leaders but how does that make the average citizen feel if their leader was not chosen by them.

It is also my opinion that if we want our sovereignty respected we need to give others their sovereign rights as well. I would not take it too kindly if U.N. soldiers were to be assembled on U.S. soil; but right now we have the power and stability to prevent it. What happens when, not if, we lose our power and stability and it takes U.N. intervention? I agree with Aidon that China is much more of a threat to U.S. interests than any current muslim extremist movement. A large, cheap labor pool and a growing technology base courtesy of some U.S. blunders; all they need are the resources and they would dominate the global economy for years to come. We can not defeat them outright with nonnuclear military might.

Remember the games we use to play in Central and South America when the former Soviet Union was still around? Covert operations and supplying rebel factions to fight our battles instead of head on tactics. Why is it that we don't employ those same tactics in the Middle East. We use direct intervention simply because the opposition has no nukes or a technologically advanced military. The Bomb is the deterrent and if you don't have the Bomb you have nothing to lose by using any means at your disposal to win.

I really have no faith in the U.N. to solve any major conflict. Member nations are after their own best interests and rarely do you find them all in agrrement on any particular issue. I know it is easier to go in and try to change a situation rather than let internal affairs take care of themselves. If I had to choose between us and them, I'd always choose us. But fix it permanently and leave the politics out of it until it is done. How in the hell can you get it done when there are as many lawyers in the war room as there are generals.

Anka
07-31-2004, 01:18 PM
Actually Al Quaida has alot to do with Mussolini and fascism. Strong nationalistic tendacies with a the raising of the government to almost theopolitical levels (or in Al Quaida's case, purely theopolitical levels).

The main reason why there were not greater theological overtones to the fascist states of the 30's and 40's was because Europe, as a whole, had been undergoing a rather strong period of secularization after the rise amd prominence of 19th century philosophy and science.

Hitler was actually slowly building his own religion based heavily what he believed the pre-chistrian Teutonic beliefs were.


Assuming we debatably take the Taliban as the only actual example of an Al Qaida style government, there are very few similarities with facism if any. They were both dictatorial and oppresive, but so have been a good many governments in history. The Taliban was as pure a theocracy as you're ever likely to find in practice, instituting laws based on their own version of Islam. It was so simplistic it could have been in place 500 years before facism was invented. Facism only overlaid existing religeous structures, catholic or protestant, and Hitler even drew strong themes from over cultures such as the roman empire. One of reasons the world was unprepared for Al Qiada was that it was expecting a nationalism based threat from communist or facist ideologies rather than terrorism which ignores national boundaries.

vestix
07-31-2004, 01:44 PM
Allowed? How would you propose to stop this type of activism?

Seriously, though, I say let people say whatever they want to say. It is the responsibility of the voters to separate sense from nonsense and act accordingly. Who knows, maybe one day they'll actually start doing so.

Aidon
07-31-2004, 02:17 PM
Assuming we debatably take the Taliban as the only actual example of an Al Qaida style government, there are very few similarities with facism if any. They were both dictatorial and oppresive, but so have been a good many governments in history. The Taliban was as pure a theocracy as you're ever likely to find in practice, instituting laws based on their own version of Islam. It was so simplistic it could have been in place 500 years before facism was invented. Facism only overlaid existing religeous structures, catholic or protestant, and Hitler even drew strong themes from over cultures such as the roman empire. One of reasons the world was unprepared for Al Qiada was that it was expecting a nationalism based threat from communist or facist ideologies rather than terrorism which ignores national boundaries.


The world was unprepared for Al Qaida, as you say, because in the grand scheme of things, they are small times. They've invaded no Czechoslovakia. The only nation they'd any real power in was a third world nation most people in the West wouldn't be able to locate on a map.

If you look at Fascism and Al Qaida "ideals" both, essentially, have the same basic tones. Fascism was about nationalism and the government telling its people "This is a good (German, Italian, Spanish) man/woman acts, this is what they do". Which is exactly what Al Qaida does, simply swap German, Italian, Spanish for Arab/Muslim.

Anka
07-31-2004, 05:56 PM
If you look at Fascism and Al Qaida "ideals" both, essentially, have the same basic tones. Fascism was about nationalism and the government telling its people "This is a good (German, Italian, Spanish) man/woman acts, this is what they do". Which is exactly what Al Qaida does, simply swap German, Italian, Spanish for Arab/Muslim.

Most governments and religions tell their people what to do and what makes them good people. Democracies are about the only governments that listen to people instead. It doesn't mean most governments and religions are facist, especially every monarchy and government that existed before the word facism even existed. It is quite hard to pin down what facism is exactly, but calling things facist that clearly aren't facist isn't going to help. There are enough words to descibe the horror of Al Qaida already, and the sooner they're properly understood the sooner they'll be defeated.

I'd have thought after the difficulties the US had with the word communism in the fifties, people might have realised you can't tar everyone with the same brush.

weoden
08-01-2004, 01:09 AM
Gus, dude, light up a big fattie and everything will be OoooKkkaaaaaaayy.....

Listen, if americans vote for the same congressman and senator... year after year then they deserve what they get.... The media exists to expose quid pro quo agreements and other less than above board deals... like food for oil....

You mentioned China... The Chineese got the gov't they fought a revlolution for... I do not begrude the Chineese seeking a gov't to their liking... I my parents have a friend that worked in the Tiawan embassy, as a cook, in the late 50's... He was Chineese...

If the Canadians dislike Americans then they do... If all they can do is "feel" then let them act like children... What can I do? Are you saying that America should alter its policy toward countries other than Canada based on what Canadians feel?

"Our influence and ability to handle foreign crises and issues is being taxed to the point of breaking right now. Any further extension of our will and might is going to leave us vulnerable to external or internal chaos."

What does that mean? If you believe that the military should be used to put out fires, I have a solution*starts up his chain saw*. What foreign crisis? The Balkans? haha... Maybe France can do something? Why the US? Let the UN do it... buhahaha...

"It is a nation no longer of the majority but a coalition of fractious minorities."

You must be a democrate....

"Is American policy being dictated by business interests solely or is there a definite altruistic behavior on behalf of our leaders? I just think it is fair that if we continue to drive foreign reform movements that we should allow outside reform to affect us."

Or are you a Nadar groupie?

Aidon
08-01-2004, 02:24 AM
Most governments and religions tell their people what to do and what makes them good people. Democracies are about the only governments that listen to people instead. It doesn't mean most governments and religions are facist, especially every monarchy and government that existed before the word facism even existed. It is quite hard to pin down what facism is exactly, but calling things facist that clearly aren't facist isn't going to help. There are enough words to descibe the horror of Al Qaida already, and the sooner they're properly understood the sooner they'll be defeated.

I'd have thought after the difficulties the US had with the word communism in the fifties, people might have realised you can't tar everyone with the same brush.

Main Entry: fasˇcism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>


From Marriam-Webster Online.

Fascism is a fairly broad term.

Essentially the only difference between fascism and your basic dictatorial regime is a fascist uses propoganda to convince a large segment of the population that it is a proper and wholesome government.

Regarding "communism", since you brought it up, ultimately the differences between the Fascist states of the first half of the 20th century and Soviet Communism were pretty much in name only. We didn't fear Communism because Communism itself was a horrible idea. We feared Communism, initially, because the industrialists feared unionization and then because we realized that Soviet Communism was an aggressive fascist regime, for all intents and purposes.

Anka
08-01-2004, 08:04 AM
I still stand by my claim that Al Qaida isn't facist.

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race

Just what nation or race does Al Qaida exalt? It is a movement that represents a religious group that crosses racial and national boundaries. Al Qaida has no homeleand. Al Qaida wear no uniforms. The Taliban did nothing to exalt the idea of being an Afghan, left a tribal structure firmly in place, relinquisehed power to local warlords, and destroyed the nation's cultural heritage.

If you say that Al Qaida has 'a tendency towards strong autocratic control', despite it meeting no other criteria for facism, then that really is so vague you might as well say that Tony Blair is facist for all the good it does.

Gus Fifo
08-01-2004, 09:32 AM
Actually Weoden I am a moderate Republican. I used to be an ultra conservative Republican but damn those liberal colleges. :) I find Nader's candidacy amusing. The Democrats want him out and the Republicans want him in. He is just a whipping boy for both parties. But I am do support third party candidates if only for the fact it is an exercise in better democracy.

I personally like Canadians, well except for those Frenchies, they are of a different slant for sure. I do not have an issue with the Chinese at the moment except in recognizing they will be a powerful adversary to American policy in the future.

My comment on our ability to handle "foreign crises" was not purely a military issue. A lot of nations want our economic support and in some cases political legitimacy. Most nations would be happy if we just wrote them a check and didn't send in the military or check in to see if the money was being spent wisely. And as for letting France handle anything of consequence, I think there is a broad side of a barn that needs hitting if they can manage that. Maybe when the EU gets all there squabbles solved then maybe they can field an effective military entity.

The statement about coaltitions of fractious majorities was in reference to interest groups allying with whomever as long as their interests are served. These voting blocks gravitate towards who can provide them the most benefit for their support. They may support a Democrat in one race but a Republican in another. Very seldom do you see many issues pass that are voted on by a vast majority, often it comes down to a few votes. Most Supreme Court issues are decide 5-4. Can you really claim a mandate for your agenda if you won 50.001% of the vote?

France and Germany sent delegates to the DNC to show their support for "regime change" in the U.S. I just saw this Canadian petition while surfing other boards at the same time and wanted to bring up an arguement about elections. I have read about historical instance where foreign influence has dramatically changed leadership choices in other countries. It is interesting, if not entirely appreciated, to see so much involvement from foreign groups to exert even a little influence on our presidential election. If the current congressional makeup remains the same it won't matter if Kerry wins anyway. The Republican congress will stop him dead in the water.

Thanks for the debate and info everyone.

Aidon
08-01-2004, 06:43 PM
I still stand by my claim that Al Qaida isn't facist.



Just what nation or race does Al Qaida exalt? It is a movement that represents a religious group that crosses racial and national boundaries. Al Qaida has no homeleand. Al Qaida wear no uniforms. The Taliban did nothing to exalt the idea of being an Afghan, left a tribal structure firmly in place, relinquisehed power to local warlords, and destroyed the nation's cultural heritage.

If you say that Al Qaida has 'a tendency towards strong autocratic control', despite it meeting no other criteria for facism, then that really is so vague you might as well say that Tony Blair is facist for all the good it does.

The foremost goal of Al Quaida is to drive western forces out of the Arabian penisula. That has been its goal. Its an muslim-arab nationalist movement, ultimately.

Anka
08-01-2004, 08:13 PM
If we ignore the african, afghan, and asian branches of Al Qaida for the moment and say that the basic goal of Al Qaida is to drive westerners out of the arab peninsular, then that still makes it something other than facist. A facist organisation would have a goal of gaining autocratic control of the arab peninsular for itself, and that isn't the goal of Al Qaida.

I'm sure many people don't understand Al Qaida. I certainly don't, but I have tried to understand where it's philosophy differs from conventional western values. Ascribing western concepts to an entirely different type of organisation isn't going to help anyone understand it.

weoden
08-01-2004, 08:54 PM
If we ignore the african, afghan, and asian branches of Al Qaida for the moment and say that the basic goal of Al Qaida is to drive westerners out of the arab peninsular...

Islama-fascists intend to bully and push asside all resistance to their influence. Hitler had panzers but these guys have young men that will strap a bomb to their belly and blow it up next to a leader. Then without the need for armies takes over the gov't.

Despots have the most to fear from these guys. Despots are unelected and possilbly exist as a ruler working directly against the will of the average citizen. In other words, a despot can get assasinated and the gov't may crumble or fall in to civil war.

This is a real issue in the 10 - 40 window. Most of these contries do not have any form of elected gov't. All of these gov'ts have the possiblity of ending up like a Sudan where millions are slaughtered because of religious differences...

This is different than Hitler but the political thought runs along the view that different should be "terminated". Such as communists or Jews or gays in the Third Reich.

weoden
08-01-2004, 09:10 PM
Maybe when the EU gets all there squabbles solved then maybe they can field an effective military entity.

The statement about coaltitions of fractious majorities was in reference to interest groups allying with whomever as long as their interests are served. These voting blocks gravitate towards who can provide them the most benefit for their support. ... often it comes down to a few votes. Most Supreme Court issues are decide 5-4. Can you really claim a mandate for your agenda if you won 50.001% of the vote? ...

France and Germany sent delegates to the DNC to show their support for "regime change" in the U.S. wanted to bring up an arguement about elections.


The EU is about where the US was during the article of confederation. It will take a certain amount of stress for the EU to move toward a more centralized gov't and then I doubt that Europe will release 2 thousand years of differences.

I do not think a mandate is always mandatory. For the US to try something and then change its mind seems to make sense to me. Possibly a technology needs to get developed before some "idea" can become succesful.

France and Germany sendng delagates is news! The US media should have covered that... and the US population can make up their minds... The Communist News Network(CNN) would have a certain spin on that... that other networks might not have.

Aidon
08-01-2004, 10:56 PM
If we ignore the african, afghan, and asian branches of Al Qaida for the moment and say that the basic goal of Al Qaida is to drive westerners out of the arab peninsular, then that still makes it something other than facist. A facist organisation would have a goal of gaining autocratic control of the arab peninsular for itself, and that isn't the goal of Al Qaida.

I'm sure many people don't understand Al Qaida. I certainly don't, but I have tried to understand where it's philosophy differs from conventional western values. Ascribing western concepts to an entirely different type of organisation isn't going to help anyone understand it.

First of all, they do want an autocratic theocracy in the Arabian Peninsula. They blow up alot of arab institutions as well because they want to overthrow their governments...especially governments which show any appeasement with the West.

Secondly, we don't need to much understand them. We cannot negotiate with them. They view us as infidels, second class citizens at best. It truly is an Us or Them situation.

Anka
08-02-2004, 07:19 AM
First of all, they do want an autocratic theocracy in the Arabian Peninsula.

Perhaps, but they don't necessarily want their own autocratic theocracy in power. They are pressuring the existing governments to be more theocratic. This is yet another reason why they're not facist.

Lets consider the provisional IRA in Northern Ireland. It draws from one religious group and it's primary goal is entirely nationalistic. It used violent terrorism as it's primary method. It has a secretive ruling council that enforces absolute internal disciple with punishment beatings and kneecapping. Despite that, I cannot remember it ever being called facist or its members being called cathalo-facists in all my lifetime. The IRA was in my view an evil organisation but it's not facist, despite meeting most of your cited criteria, and neither is Al Qaida.

Secondly, we don't need to much understand them. We cannot negotiate with them. They view us as infidels, second class citizens at best. It truly is an Us or Them situation.

You can however stop the young mulim sympathisers of today from becoming the terrorist army of tomorrow. There must be some reasons why young men and women are strapping bombs to themselves, maybe some of those can be solved for the benefit of everyone. As soon as you stop listening you have decided that everything you are doing is absolutely right in every circumstance, and that's a very foolish and dangerous thing to do.

'Us and Them' tactics were used to fight Northern Irelend terrorism for over 30 years. The best progress has instead been made by trying to integrate these terrorists into a political process and addressing their grievances over discrimination, political representation, and policing. Sounds dull, but it is actually working, and in hindsight the British Government has 'surrendered' very little.

Fenlayen
08-02-2004, 07:28 AM
Lets consider the provisional IRA in Northern Ireland. It draws from one religious group and it's primary goal is entirely nationalistic. It used violent terrorism as it's primary method. It has a secretive ruling council that enforces absolute internal disciple with punishment beatings and kneecapping. Despite that, I cannot remember it ever being called facist or its members being called cathalo-facists in all my lifetime. The IRA was in my view an evil organisation but it's not facist, despite meeting most of your cited criteria, and neither is Al Qaida.

The PIRA during WWII did have certain facist leanings, the chances are that it was more an anti british thing than an actual desire for a Facist irish state.

Panamah
08-02-2004, 04:10 PM
Well, what concerns me as much is business influencing our foreign affairs. Lets take, for instance, illegal immigration. US businesses really profit from our borders being open to third world countries. They get cheap labor and don't have to pay employment taxes. Both parties get a lot of money from businesses so neither part is willing to enforce our immigration laws. It lowers our own wages in this country, saps local and state governments of funds when they're forced to care for illegal immigrants. And it makes it really, really easy for criminals and terrorists to sneak over the border. Who is going to notice a couple of mid-easterners with fake Mexican identities when there are 1,000's of illegals coming over every day.

And how does all the off-shoring affect politics when "American" companies who are doing more business out of the US than in it, contribute to political parties?

The US has meddled hugely in the political affairs of a lot of governments even to the point of overthrowing governments and installing ones we liked better (that usually backfired on us though). The campaign contributions are incredibly minor compared to what we've done to everyone else. However, I wouldn't object to the additional campaign reform.

Aidon
08-02-2004, 10:51 PM
Perhaps, but they don't necessarily want their own autocratic theocracy in power. They are pressuring the existing governments to be more theocratic. This is yet another reason why they're not facist.

Lets consider the provisional IRA in Northern Ireland. It draws from one religious group and it's primary goal is entirely nationalistic. It used violent terrorism as it's primary method. It has a secretive ruling council that enforces absolute internal disciple with punishment beatings and kneecapping. Despite that, I cannot remember it ever being called facist or its members being called cathalo-facists in all my lifetime. The IRA was in my view an evil organisation but it's not facist, despite meeting most of your cited criteria, and neither is Al Qaida.



You can however stop the young mulim sympathisers of today from becoming the terrorist army of tomorrow. There must be some reasons why young men and women are strapping bombs to themselves, maybe some of those can be solved for the benefit of everyone. As soon as you stop listening you have decided that everything you are doing is absolutely right in every circumstance, and that's a very foolish and dangerous thing to do.

'Us and Them' tactics were used to fight Northern Irelend terrorism for over 30 years. The best progress has instead been made by trying to integrate these terrorists into a political process and addressing their grievances over discrimination, political representation, and policing. Sounds dull, but it is actually working, and in hindsight the British Government has 'surrendered' very little.


I didn't make it "Us and Them". They did. If I were a Jew in a nation controlled by them, the best I could hope for is expulsion from the country with confiscation of all of my property. The more likely senario would be death. They despise the West. They despise those who are not Muslim. There can be no understanding or dialogue with such people. They are not fighting simply for self-determination somewhere, they are fighting for aggresive Islamification of any territory they can exert sufficient influence over.