Hatunen wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2006 18:37:58 -0700, "Tchiowa"
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Hatunen wrote:
> >> On 17 Aug 2006 08:09:52 -0700, "Tchiowa"
> >> wrote:
> >> >If you don't think we're at war with Islamic Fascists then you need to
> >> >wake up. The fact is that the politicians refuse to label them as
> >> >Islamic so they just say "Terrorists". But that doesn't alter the fact
> >> >that we are in a shooting war.
> >>
> >> Among other things, you apparently have no idea of what "fascism"
> >> actually is. The Islamic terrorists are not fascists. For the
> >> most part, fascism is antithetical to Islam. Saddam Hussein was
> >> close to be a fascist, but he decreed the state to be secular.
> >
> >Excellent tactic. You can't find fault with the argument so you want to
> >debate the use of a particular word.
>
> I have very deep feelings about fascism and nazism, and I find
> usage like yours both an indication of ignorance and watering
> down of a term that should be kept the way it was.
>
> >Works real well in High School debates.
>
> So you feel you should just throw around terminology willy-nilly
> whether correctly used or not? And what was your reason for using
> the term at all if not to make some sort of emotional argument?
It's the commonly used term these days.
Dictionary describes Fascism as "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." And
that's pretty much what the Islamic terrorists are trying to create.
> >> >> My predjudice is getting these people on trial (IOW justice). Yours is
> >> >> to avoid seeing that happen.
> >> >
> >> >On trial for *what*? Most aren't accused of breaking US law. They are
> >> >being held as prisoners of war. Nothing "guilty" about that. And no
> >> >trials to hold.
> >>
> >> They are indeed being held as prisoners of war. But that begs the
> >> question: "Should they be held as prisoners of war?"
> >
> >Good question. I think they should. But it has nothing to do with being
> >"guilty" of anything. Nor can we put them on trial.
>
> Nonsense. If they are combatants in a war and are doing combative
> things while out of uniform they can be summarily shot after a
> brief military hearing.
But no one is doing that and no one is suggesting it. And no one,
including me, is implying that they are "guilty" of anything.
> >> >During WWII, did the UK put captured German soldiers on trial or did
> >> >they simply hold them until the end of the war then send them home?
> >>
> >> That was a declared war and both sides wore uniforms. A captured
> >> enemy out of uniform is not a prisoner of war; that's why
> >> Washington had Major Andre hanged.
> >
> >Very good. A captured enemy out of uniform is not a prisoner of war.
> >Exactly Bush's argument with these people.
>
> I know it is. But I'm not arguing either way. The question is
> whether they are prisoners of war and if not, what are they?
No. The question is whether the are prisoners of war or Prisoners Of
War. The second being the very specific term as defined by the Geneva
Conventions. They are not. But they are prisoners of war.
> An that requries another answer: Is it a war in teh meaning of that
> term?
Yes.
|