The terrorism theory President Bush refuses to hear (1 Viewer)

[Captain Gh3y]

why? what sets those theories apart from what you're spouting?

The Elvis theory isn't falsifiable

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

The 9/11 one is.

 

[JayB]

point taken. although, his body...

cool site though

 

[Comrade nathan]

Stop calling Iraq fascist. There have only been 2 fascist countries, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Maybe Japan falls in that historical transition of capitalism, im not sure about the situation there, I i think it was just an empire.

Just because a country is oppressive doesn't make it Fascist.

 

[JayB]

no, its right wing political stance does.

"Fascism is a radical political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism."

iraq and iran pretty much embody that. so how arent they fascist?

and you're right. the soviet communists had the oppression thing way down pat. its more the dictatorship in general thing.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

sorry, how many people has islamic extremism killed in the last 5 years?

A bit late, but, at least 26437 killed and 50992 injured from 12/09/2001 to 11/07/2006.
(compiled from http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/)

 

[bshoc]

Stop calling Iraq fascist. There have only been 2 fascist countries, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Maybe Japan falls in that historical transition of capitalism, im not sure about the situation there, I i think it was just an empire.

Just because a country is oppressive doesn't make it Fascist.

Fascism is a derivative of socialism.

Say it with me now National ... Socialist ... German ... Workers ... Party

 

[Comrade nathan]

Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....

-Benito Mussolini

Fascism can only occur under capitalism. The country needs to be a developed capitalist society. Germany and Italy needed to boost their economies if they were going to become world powers. By merging capital with the state the capitalist are in an alliance. So Fascism is the end of liberal capitalism. But class relationship is still capitalist. The means of production are not nationalised. The owners are still bourgeois, they are just not competting. This refers to corporatism.

This economic development follows with reactionary culture. It heightens nationalism to secure the working class. The working class also recieve benifits as the economy improves. Though politically they decline. There is nothing socialist about this style of government. It seems socialist because of a large state and the role it plays in the economy. Though without nationalisation and working class participation in democracy, it is capitalist.

In Iraq there was no such development. Iraq was not able to create fascism. It was 3rd world country with an oppressive government. It's economy is nothing like Fascism. It tried to create a socialist economy wich relied heavily on 1) Oil market and 2) aid. With this they were able to set up some services and improve some living standards untill 1990s and on.

 

[bshoc]

-Benito Mussolini

"Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism"

Not the opposite of socialism in general however, not adhering to the class struggle doesent mean you're not centralizing the economy, taking people's paychecks, banning large swathes of private property and setting up a police state.

Fascism can only occur under capitalism.

Fascism came directly after socialist parties in the two cases which you sight (Italy and Germany).

The country needs to be a developed capitalist society.

Deveoped? If the great depression era Germany or agrarian Italy can even be considered "livable" .. let alone "developed"

Germany and Italy needed to boost their economies if they were going to become world powers. By merging capital with the state the capitalist are in an alliance. So Fascism is the end of liberal capitalism. But class relationship is still capitalist. The means of production are not nationalised. The owners are still bourgeois, they are just not competting. This refers to corporatism.

It's still socialism, both the nazis and Benito engaged in large swathes of nationalization and sought to create large state arteries from which to engage in state economic activity. Even the largest, most powerful industrialists (e.g. Mercedes, IG Farben) were only allowed to retain limited control of their enterprise, and that was after willingly subjegating their companies to the control and will of the socialist state.

This economic development follows with reactionary culture. It heightens nationalism to secure the working class. The working class also recieve benifits as the economy improves. Though politically they decline. There is nothing socialist about this style of government. It seems socialist because of a large state and the role it plays in the economy. Though without nationalisation and working class participation in democracy, it is capitalist.

Taken straight from the Nazi Party doctrine:

10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:


11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.


12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.


13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).


14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.


15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.


16. We demand the creation of a healthy working class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.


17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

In Iraq there was no such development. Iraq was not able to create fascism. It was 3rd world country with an oppressive government. It's economy is nothing like Fascism. It tried to create a socialist economy wich relied heavily on 1) Oil market and 2) aid. With this they were able to set up some services and improve some living standards untill 1990s and on.

Oh I had no axe to grind with you on this point, Iraq was a totalitarian state with little genuine economic policy besides what goes into Saddam's coffers every night, my point to grind was that fascism/nazism is a variation of socialism rather than a development of capitalism. Adolf would not have participated in a party with the words "socialist" and "workers" in it otherwise.

 

[The Logical One]

Why can't we have peace and all get along? Plz Captain Gh3y, let's have peace....






Edit: Spelling mistake....

 

[JayB]

there will be peace yeah, just not until the crazy people either give up, or are made to give up. iwonder which is more likely.

 

[Comrade nathan]

Not the opposite of socialism in general however, not adhering to the class struggle doesent mean you're not centralizing the economy, taking people's paychecks, banning large swathes of private property and setting up a police state

Socialism is class-based economy, not large government. There was still private property. Fascism is just merging capital power with state power.

Fascism came directly after socialist parties in the two cases which you sight (Italy and Germany).

They were populist parties.

Deveoped? If the great depression era Germany or agrarian Italy can even be considered "livable" .. let alone "developed"

Germany was still developed. It was an imperial power that had a large defeat in WW1. It was a modern capitalist power by the 1900's. Italy was less developed. But the main factor is that as Italian capitalism rapidly grew and German capitalism regrew, Fascism developed. You can't have real fascism if you have a failing economy, nor a socialist economy.

It is during rapid growth facing a national crisis and left opposition that fascism grows.

It's still socialism, both the nazis and Benito engaged in large swathes of nationalization and sought to create large state arteries from which to engage in state economic activity. Even the largest, most powerful industrialists (e.g. Mercedes, IG Farben) were only allowed to retain limited control of their enterprise, and that was after willingly subjegating their companies to the control and will of the socialist state.

This is not nationalisation. It is just merging state with capital. It was still private property.

Taken straight from the Nazi Party doctrine:

Straight from the 1920's

It is a populist document. It appeals to all self described German nationals.

In the ALP and UK Labor party offically describe themselves as democractic socialist. In the early days the ALP even congratulated the people of Russia during the 1917 revolution. But neither party have ever made attempts to create socialism. They haven't take the chance to extend public property. It was a common thing to mention socialist or social in party name of program.

Anyway i wont argue any more about the economy of Fascism. I just wanted people to stop calling places like Iraq fascist, or using the term Islamofascism.

 

[The Logical One]

there will be peace yeah, just not until the crazy people either give up, or are made to give up. iwonder which is more likely.

Give up JayB please... we don't want to have to make you... please..

 

[JayB]

do try. really. do.

 

[Aryanbeauty]

i wonder what would happened if Japan dropped a nuke on america. Its stupid argument that pro-americans use to justify their actions against Japan. There are so many ways to end the way - Japan were already losing.. and I am sure america could have arranged a diplomatic solution. Another argument they used they wanted to test it? there are so many places to test nukes in the world by testing and taking video footage and showing japs - i am sure they could have reached a diplomatic solution.

America, Britain and China aranged diplomatic solutions through Potsdam Declaration in July 1945. Japan rejected (actually did not bother to reply officially). The US Airforce also dropped leaflets to major japanese peoples warning them to leave cities as they are going to drop a bomb powerful than they could ever imagined.

Japan still refused to surrender even after Hiroshima bombing (if an actual nuclear bomb cannot convince them how would a video tape convince them?)and diplomatic solutions was easier said than done when dealing with Imperial Japan controlled by Military at that time.

Excerpt from some leaflets.
TO THE JAPANESE PEOPLE:
America asks that you take immediate heed of what we say on this leaflet.
We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate.

Before using this bomb to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, we ask that you now petition the Emperor to end the war.........

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/truman/psources/ps_leaflets.html

By the way japs is considered racist term by themselves.

 

[HotShot]

America, Britain and China aranged diplomatic solutions through Potsdam Declaration in July 1945. Japan rejected (actually did not bother to reply officially). The US Airforce also dropped leaflets to major japanese peoples warning them to leave cities as they are going to drop a bomb powerful than they could ever imagined.

Japan still refused to surrender even after Hiroshima bombing (if an actual nuclear bomb cannot convince them how would a video tape convince them?)and diplomatic solutions was easier said than done when dealing with Imperial Japan controlled by Military at that time.

Excerpt from some leaflets.
TO THE JAPANESE PEOPLE:
America asks that you take immediate heed of what we say on this leaflet.
We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate.

Before using this bomb to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, we ask that you now petition the Emperor to end the war.........

U have to realise that that japanese had no knowledge of atomic bombs. So naturally these warnings have little warning because there were already numerous bombing raids taking place at the time. Many would have thought these were scare-tactics, or a trick.

Two early critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard, who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written letter to President Roosevelt. Szilard, who had gone on to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued:

"If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them."

It was a new weapon...

Many would argue were already defeated and that atomic bombs were not necessary.

Many, including General MacArthur, have contended that Japan would have surrendered before the bombings if the U.S. had notified Japan that it would accept a surrender that allowed Emperor Hirohito to keep his position as titular leader of Japan, a condition the U.S. did in fact allow after Japan surrendered.

 

[Aryanbeauty]

Yeah they still thought Hiroshima bombing was also just a normal air raid gone bad wasn't it? They still refused to surrender even after Hiroshima bombing and it requires another Nuclear bomb at Nagasaki to force them to surrender.

Didn't you suggest videotaping a nuclear bomb blast somewhere else and show to the japanese to make them see its destruction to facilitate diplomacy!

 

[P_Dilemma]

America, Britain and China aranged diplomatic solutions through Potsdam Declaration in July 1945. Japan rejected (actually did not bother to reply officially). The US Airforce also dropped leaflets to major japanese peoples warning them to leave cities as they are going to drop a bomb powerful than they could ever imagined.

Japan still refused to surrender even after Hiroshima bombing (if an actual nuclear bomb cannot convince them how would a video tape convince them?)and diplomatic solutions was easier said than done when dealing with Imperial Japan controlled by Military at that time.

Excerpt from some leaflets.
TO THE JAPANESE PEOPLE:
America asks that you take immediate heed of what we say on this leaflet.
We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate.

Before using this bomb to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, we ask that you now petition the Emperor to end the war.........

U have to realise that that japanese had no knowledge of atomic bombs. So naturally these warnings have little warning because there were already numerous bombing raids taking place at the time. Many would have thought these were scare-tactics, or a trick.

Two early critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard, who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written letter to President Roosevelt. Szilard, who had gone on to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued:



It was a new weapon...

Many would argue were already defeated and that atomic bombs were not necessary.

sad, yes, but i'm leaning towards the view that the extra persuasion was necessary. The japanese ethic back then was terribly focussed upon never-give-up and die-before-surrendering. How do you fight something like that through normal means?

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

Wow you don't read this thread for a day and a half and suddenly we're talking about Japan.

"Before using this bomb to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, we ask that you now petition the Emperor to end the war........."

Perhaps Japan didn't respond because they were fully aware that America couldn't destroy their millitary...perhaps they couldn't believe the American people would commit shocking war crimes in front of the world.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Wow you don't read this thread for a day and a half and suddenly we're talking about Japan.

"Before using this bomb to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, we ask that you now petition the Emperor to end the war........."

Perhaps Japan didn't respond because they were fully aware that America couldn't destroy their millitary...perhaps they couldn't believe the American people would commit shocking war crimes in front of the world.

You're right, the poor Japanese knew nothing about war crimes.

 

[banco55]

For anyone who doesn't think they should have dropped the bomb I suggest you have a look at the projected casualty/death figures (on both sides) for an invasion of the main japanese islands.