By Manila Ryce
Published Friday, August 4th, 2006, 2:23 am
Filed under: World: Asia, World: Europe, Human Rights, War, World Issues, Terrorism, Society/Culture

4 Responses to “Iranian PM Gives Blair the Shocker”

1. 

   As I don’t really give a shit either way it goes, I’ll play devil’s advocate. First, a democratically elected government can’t be fascist (Hitler and Mussolini became dictators and abolished democracy), and it’s getting old when every disliked government is called fascist. Please look up the word fascist and use it correctly, because it has nothing to do with the Israeli government (or our own, or Britain’s, or any other democratic government that it’s trendy for teeny bopper anarchists to dislike).

   When Ahmadinejad says “regime change”, he means put the Palestinians in power, not a less hostile Jewish government. I find it kind of laughable that you think the fanatical leader of Iran wants any sort of peace with Israel, or a more moderate and western government. If he doesn’t explicitly want the Jews driven into the sea, he definitely wants them under Sharia law so they’ll be subservient to the dominant Muslims.

   As for the UN, they’re a joke. They’ll never have any power, and I don’t think they ever should. International law is such an absurd idea I’m not even going to go into it. The idea that there are legal and illegal wars is laughable.

   Kaziglu Bey
   08/4/06 at 6:14 am
   
2. 

   @Kaziglu Bey
   “First, a democratically elected government can’t be fascist (Hitler and Mussolini became dictators and abolished democracy)”

   I believe Mussolini was elected democratically, and though Hitler wasn’t, he gained power legally according to Germany’s Constitution. At what point do you decide that democracy has been abolished? Do you count voter fraud, ignoring the constitution, corporate hijacking, and authoritarian control? Perhaps abolishing democracy actually requires the government to say “okay, we’re all fascist”.

   “…it’s getting old when every disliked government is called fascist. Please look up the word fascist and use it correctly, because it has nothing to do with the Israeli government (or our own, or Britain’s, or any other democratic government that it’s trendy for teeny bopper anarchists to dislike).”

   Yes, and well respected historians and intellectuals also use the same word. Very well, here’s the definition: ‘Fascism - A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.’
   I fail to see how using this word is incorrect in describing Israel and America. Both governments may not be under the control of a single dictator who displays himself under such a title, but then again, they never do. Israel and America are under the control of administrations that do have authoritarian control. Israel even more so than America. Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with any of Israel’s laws targeting Arabs, which remind me an awful lot of the Nuremberg Laws. Here are a few that seem a bit undemocratic to me:
   - Palestinian citizens of East Jerusalem were not allowed to vote in Palestine’s last elections.
   - PM Sharon, before the January elections, declared that if Hamas candidates stood in Palestinian territory occupied by Israel, the West Bank, then voting there would be annulled.
   - Jewish political parties which were oppose to the Separation Wall were kicked out of the Israeli Parliament.
   - Palestinians who marry Israelis are barred from becoming citizens or residents of Israel. These couples are not even allowed to live together.
   - Palestinians who are forced off their land are considered absentees. Israel is allowed to confiscate this public or communal land as its own.
   - Currently, All journalism in Israel must be review by Israel’s chief military censor who has the power to silence a broadcaster, block information, and put journalists in jail.

   “When Ahmadinejad says “regime change”, he means put the Palestinians in power, not a less hostile Jewish government. I find it kind of laughable that you think the fanatical leader of Iran wants any sort of peace with Israel, or a more moderate and western government.”

   I don’t pretend to be a mind-reader, hence, what Ahmadinejad says is fairly more important to me than what anyone assumes he must mean. As far as I know, he has not said any of what you claim his goal to be. I may be wrong. Please correct me if I am. Most of the horrendous assumptions we have of Ahmadinejad are filtered through a pro-Israeli media which often misinterprets his speeches. Transcripts of his speeches translated by Persian speakers are far different than the individual quotes we receive in the west. Do I think he wants peace with Israel? I believe it’s possible, given that he did want peace and diplomacy with the US before we rejected that proposal too. But this is all speculation and off topic since I’m merely defending his current proposal on the war in Lebanon as a rational proposal. I don’t feel I should have to defend everything the man says or thinks simply because I agree with him on one issue.

   “If he doesn’t explicitly want the Jews driven into the sea, he definitely wants them under Sharia law so they’ll be subservient to the dominant Muslims.”

   Everyone thinks their laws are the ones that ought to be followed. I believe in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), but I also agree with Iran when they said the UDHR is “a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition”. Once again, who cares what Ahmadinejad wants? Perhaps he wants the world to follow Sharia Law just as we want the world to follow Judeo-Christian law. I think enough wars have been fought over what we think other leaders want, or believe, or mean. Perhaps we should focus on what they actually do rather than think when we’re writing our enemy list.

   Administrator
   08/4/06 at 12:17 pm
   
3. 

   “I fail to see how using this word is incorrect in describing Israel and America.”

   You said it yourself, there are no dictators. That’s pretty huge in fascism, as a fasces (bundle of wood wrapped around an axe) in ancient Rome meant “leadership”. There’s also parliament in Israel’s case, and congress in our case, which limits the democratically elected PM or president severely. Yeah, the president controls the military 100%, but that’s it. There is no government censorship in America (besides what information the government already has that they choose to give us, but that’s true in every government), I’m less clear on Israel. But somehow I doubt there are secret police flying down in black helicopters to abduct journalists and opposition party members.

   Basically we’re watering down the word to describe every government we don’t like. It’s the same idiocy that prompts people to compare Bush with Hitler, even though they have nothing in common. Just more sensationalist crap that has little to do with reality.

   Kaziglu Bey
   08/4/06 at 3:33 pm
   
4. 

   Sorry for not replying earlier.

   “You said it yourself, there are no dictators. That’s pretty huge in fascism, as a fasces (bundle of wood wrapped around an axe) in ancient Rome meant ‘leadership’.”

   I’m familiar with the symbol of the fasci, which is a bundle of rods (axe not always necessary). The bundled rods symbolize strength through unity, in that each independent rod is fragile, but as a bundle they are strong. In fact, the fasci is gripped in the left claw of the eagle on the back of every American one dollar bill. The eagle is also biting a banner which says “E. PLURIBUS UNUM”, meaning “Out of many, one”.

   The idea that fascism needs a dictator is encouraged by historians for the same reasons you’ve stated: so as not to have the word lose meaning. However, if you analyze the original symbol and idea of fascism, it simply means having a centralized authoritarian government. Afterall, there’s not much difference between one person making all the rules for a country and a handful of people making all the rules for a country. You’d have a hard time arguing that the government which controls America is anything but fascist since the executive, judicial, and legislative branch are all under the control of a handful of orchestrators. Our checks and balances might as well be non-existent.

   Of course, if you’re going to still demand that fascism requires a dictator you’ll have to convince me that our current leader is not one. There’s nothing in the rule book that says a dictator’s principles have to be the sole product of his brain. It’s obvious Bush is a puppet, but also obvious that his unchecked power is unconstitutional. Dictators incorporate principles of their dictatorship through a single-party state. Many believe the Democrats and Republicans are just two sides of the same party, only really differing on issues like gay marriage and abortion. Have the Democrats really done much since 9/11 to oppose the Repuclicans?

   Here are the characteristics of fascism as defined by wikipedia, which goes into more depth than the simple websters definition I gave before. You’ll notice that our current US government and Israel are both guilty of all of the following offenses.

   · a militarist, nationalist and xenophobic ideology (many of the squadristi were WWI veterans, and the Marinetti’s futurist movement also was a source of it; irredentism was also fundamental in Italian fascism)
   · Anti-communism
   · Economic Corporatism
   · Attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic.
   · The fascist state regulates and controls (as opposed to nationalizing) the means of production.
   · Fascism exalts the nation, state (statolatry), or race as superior to the individuals, institutions, or groups composing it.
   · Fascism uses explicit populist rhetoric and propaganda techniques applicated from crowd psychology; calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness;
   · Demands loyalty to a single leader, often to the point of a cult of personality. Charismatic authority of the leader may be invoked.
   · A powerful, dictatorial leader or ruling cadre.
   · NOTE: Holocaust denial and various forms of historical revisionism theories are often shared by contemporary neofascist movements.

   By the way, the news article refers to Israel’s government as a fascist regime, not America’s. In your first comment you said “Please look up the word fascist and use it correctly, because it has nothing to do with the Israeli government”. In your last comment you said you’re “less clear on Israel” being fascist or not. If you weren’t clear then why would you claim Ahmadinejad is wrong in defining Israel as fascist?

   Administrator
   08/6/06 at 10:12 pm
   

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Tired of filing this information out everytime you leave a comment at the Largest Minority? Why not register as a user? You also get full access to our forum!

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>