In another thread, they wouldn't let me call Al Qaeda "Muslim terrorists", so I know how you feel.
Last edited:
Iran and the Nazis
- Thread starter Pardalis
- Start date
In another thread, they wouldn't let me call Al Qaeda "Muslim terrorists", so I know how you feel.
Toontown
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 6,595
Don't let them push you around. Call them "pedanto-semanticists". Maybe you can get them to figuratively leap to their feet and stalk off the set.
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
I don't know what "they" you're referring to, but I'd like to remind you that in that thread, I actually took your side in that debate. Where we differed was in how much the Muslim part influenced their terror as opposed to the influence their political goals had on it, but I was completely with you that the label "Muslim terrorists" is entirely accurate and proper to give to groups like al-Qaeda.
Though I'm not sure what relevance you think that previous thread has to the current discussion.
Last edited:
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
You're perfectly welcome to suspect that all you want. You'd be wrong, but you can still do that.
They weren't calling for airstrikes because they thought he was a fascist, that's for damn sure.
Yes, because only the "Word Police" would bother to actually, y'know, use the actual historical and sociopolitical terms when describing things.
EDIT: You seem to have ignored my other questions, Toontown, but I want to ask this: what do you think of Jonah Goldberg's book, "Liberal Fascism"? I'm just curious...
Last edited:
Toontown
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 6,595
Thank you. Of course, we can always be wrong. You could be wrong about me being wrong, unless you have a seat at the regime's high level meetings. If not, you're just guessing, and, IMO, guessing counter-factually.
Why not? Because they are fascists also? That wouldn't plug any holes.
Word Police have their terms, I have mine. All terms are "actual", when they are used. That's what "actual" means. I'm surprised you used that term, since you seem to pride yourself on your pedanto-semantic prowess.
You ask too many questions. There are only 24 hours in a day.
I haven't read the book, but I am aware of it's central theme.
It is not a stretch to say one ideology had roots in and grew out of another, earlier ideology. That's what happens. Ideas evolve. Ideologies are cobbled together out of ideas. Sometimes contradictory ideas.
Nor is it very unusual for people to combine elements of two or more ideologies into something else. I once encountered a poster in a forum who described himself as a "Christian Marxist". I jokingly called him a cat-dog. He had apparently discarded the atheist side of Marxism and had taken unto himself the elements of Marxism he saw as consistent with Christian ideals.
I frankly don't think the genesis of ideologies matter much, except as curiosities, or possibly objects of scorn.
I don't even think Fascism is anything inherently bad or evil. It's a way of trying to get by, just like every other ideology. I think Fascism's most infamous practitioners fell into a flawed, radical offshoot of it, which instructed them to kill or be killed in a simplistic misunderstanding of Darwinism.
The U.S. has some fascist-like characteristics. But the U.S. has ended rather than started 2 world wars, and probably averted a 3rd one. Countries that have been occupied by the U.S. are now free or scheduled to be liberated when conditions warrant. The U.S. came down against colonialism after WWII, deciding that colonialism is destabilizing and prone to cause another major war. The U.S. form of militarism is essentially forwardly defensive, rather than confiscatory. We are the "good" fascists. But fascists we are, to a limited extent. And partly liberal, partly conservative, partly capitalist, partly socialist. IOW, we are pluralist, which fascism is ideologically opposed to. But we are still partly fascist.
And there are only 24 hours in a day.
#1. There is NOTHING inherently good about Fascism, which calls for a dictatorship, no political freedoms, no freedom of speech, no freedom of dissent, no freedom of association. How dare you suggest that Fascism is anything but wrong.
#2. As a proud and loyal American citizen, I am deeply and greatly offended by your malicious lie and attack against the United States, labeling us as fascist in any **** ing way. We are NOT fascists. We are a Republican Democracy, with freedom of speech, thought, press, etc etc.
Labeling the USA as even close to being "fascist", is pathetic and disgusting. Please learn about fascism before you make such incredibly false & pathetic accusations.
Last edited:
Toontown
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 6,595
(click) Jawohl, Herr Thought Meister!...er, I mean...
And how dare YOU ask me how I dare to say something you don't like. I am likely to say a good deal more that you don't like, as your pointless little badger-fest continues.
(click) Jawohl, Herr Thought Meister!...er, I mean...
And as a good and loyal American citizen, I am now carrying out my obligation to not give a rat's ass that you are greatly offended by my suggestion that elements of many ideologies exist in our pluralistic society, etc etc.
(click) Jawohl, Herr Thought Meister! I will endeavor to collect and burn all the "Liberal Fascism" books right away, as penance for my abysmal lack of knowledge.
And I will watch with great interest as you endeavor to take to task all these disgusting posters who falsely accuse the U.S. day in and day out, day after day, week after week, month after month. It will be my pleasure to watch you take them all to task and utterly discredit and destroy them!
But I will say no more in defense of the Homeland. You have shown that I am but former cannon fodder who happened to survive by mere chance, unfit to express ideas in a political forum which is filled with so many people of high intellectual and moral stature, such as yourself!
HEIL...er...I mean...
Step off, Herr Thought Meister. Back away slowly. No need for anyone to get their little feelings hurt.
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
Well, given that Iran spent WWII being a conduit to transfer US made munitions to Russia, I think your assertions need a little more documentation than someone's blog reporting WWII era propaganda.
ouch!!!!
are you saying the evil Iranian Islamo-Nazis actually assisted the Allied anti-Nazi war effort??
say it ain't so.
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
Well, there was a link between Iran and Nazis (and there is, today, a link between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Neo-Nazis).
But both those links are hell of a lot more complex than simply "the NSDAP transplanted wholesale to Iran."
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
Well, to be fair to "truthiness" you and ANTPogo are arguing that Iran is awful for completely different reasons than what Toontown says, but all seem to agree that Iran is awful. I'm sure it helps the State Department to understand that Iranian authoritarianism, xenophobia and entho-supremacism has nothing to do with Nazi influences, but it seems a distinction without a difference to the man on the street.
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Depends on what you mean by "awful." "Awful" is subjective and vague. As a Jew, I'd rather live in "awful" Iran than, say, "democratic" Yemen. I'd rather live in Detroit than either of them; all three could be classified as "awful" in some way or another.
Countering factual errors with skepticism and facts is sort of what we try to do here.
The entire point of this thread is to allege that the Iranian state is based on (or at least sympathetic with) Nazi values. The information provided to establish that POV has been shown to be, at best, faulty. Should that not be corrected? Or is the conclusion ("Iran is awful") more important than facts?
Last edited:
As the thread starter, I should clarify.
I don't know alot about Iranian history, but I do know it's a very interesting and complex society, one could say even civilization, and I'm sure it has its wonders and beauties, and I don't necessarily agree with Tootown's argument about its name, or whatever happened in the 1930's. I'm just not knowledgeable enough to determine if it's valid or not.
That said, what I did intend with this thread was to show that there is an increasing trend in the Iranian government to espouse Nazi views and ideology, and that worries me, as they are getting closer and closer to acquiring the Bomb, and the religious fervor of the ruling class is not tampering. If you mix Nazi ideology and an ever increasing religious fervor, and you top this off with atomic weaponry, you get quite a real problem.
My choice of thread title, "Iran and the Nazis", is meant to refer to the Iran today, it's present thuggish government, not necessarily the historical Iran, and its ties or not with the Nazis of before (although this could be an interesting thread subject, and could indeed explain some of the problems of today).
Sure, I'd be more than happy to have confirmed that the Nazi website is no longer accessible there. All we know is that it's been banned, unbanned, and re-banned. The deputy minister of culture in Iran is a known Nazi sympathiser, so I expect it won't be long before the website is re-unbanned again.
I'm all for free speech, but when a country cracks down on dissident websites because of "national security", but yet allows hate sites to go on, I think there is reason to expose it.
Last edited:
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
The Encyclopedia Iranica (a project of Columbia University in NYC) is a good place to start for information about Iranians and Iran in general, from a scholarly perspective.
The book linked earlier, Iran and the Challenge of Diversity: Islamic Fundamentalism, Aryanist Racism, and Democratic Struggles (the source of the quote that Toontown spuriously attributed to Reza Shah) is actually not a bad work if you want to delve into the specifics and history of Iran's relationship with the racist components of Nazi ideology, and how that ties into the ethnosupremacist authoritarianism of Iranian government and culture from the early days of the Constitutional Revolution up through the Islamic Republic of today.
It's a scholarly work designed for use in Iranian/Middle Eastern Studies courses at universities, though, so it's naturally priced like the college textbook it is.
I still feel the modern Iranian association with Neo-Nazis is purely anti-Semitic, and not because of any Iranian favoring of actual Nazi ideology beyond those specific bits. Though Gumboot's post did make me realize that I haven't been keeping up with developments over the past few years (since about 2007), so I could be wrong and they may very well be doing that now even if they weren't doing it before.
A very detailed and balanced view of the issue.
A website from Tel Aviv University. Yeah, that's really balanced.
As balanced as Prisonplanet or Stormfront.
Cleon
King of the Pod People
FFS, Thunder, it's a reasonably decent article. Why don't you read it before whining about how terribly biased it is?
I don't read articles from many sources, including Prisonplanet, We Are Change, Stormfront, Rense, The Final Call, Russia Today, Press TV, etc etc.