Raedwulf: "Israel would cheerfully be running gas chambers & concentration camps if they thought they could get away with it. So would the Arabs, of every stripe. Look at what happened in the former Yugoslavia. They're still finding the mass graves, & that was in the "Old World", Europe!"

Exactly what I have been saying here and elsewhere. It's just human nature, not Jews or Arabs or Europeans or whatever. The Geneva Conventions? In any fight to the death, there is just one rule in war: to win. If you win, you don't have to worry about the Geneva Conventions. If you lose, you won't be able to complain anyway. If the Nazis had won WW2 we would hear all about how Germany saved civilisation and ended the corrupt regimes of the US and Britain - if any of us were still alive, of course! Thankfully they didn't, but that still means we have to listen to loads of crap about how Britian and America saved the world (and in Russia people got to hear how it was Dear Comrade Stalin - though he killed more of his own people in purges almost than the Nazis did). I still laugh (darkly) at the irony of reading in history books how Nazis and Soviets each in turn 'liberated' countries from each other. From the frying pan to the fire. Sure, Britain and the US were not as totalitarian as either of the other two states, but there has been a growing trend towards totalitarianism in recent years. The so-called war on terror has been hijacked by George Blair / Tony Bush to roll back hard-won civil liberties, spy on ordinary people and crush political dissent. This effort goes way beyond the nonsense that the secret services get up to. It is being done above all by limiting public discourse: certain topics are considered of limits, or must be talked about within a certain framework. Any dissent from this (i.e open minded thought) leads to accusations of supporting terrorists, being racist or anti-semitic. Back in the middle ages daring to question the Bible could bring the inquisition to your door - you were simply not allowed to even question certain ideas or viewpoints. And that is the first sign of an ailing, sick democracy - the control of public opinion and thought. Sure, you might say, aren't we talking about it here? Yes, but if you look back over the thread you'll see how when comparisons are made between the actions of the Israeli State (not even about Jewish people, note) and Nazis, immediately there are shrill cries of 'anti-semite!' and 'racist!'. I can of course understand how someone Jewish would feel offended by the reference on grounds of emotion, history and psyche. Irish people might feel a bit offended by being called Black and Tan, for example. But if I am NOT allowed to say something, then I want to say it simply to make the point that the days when the church or stalinist state or whatever, are supposed to be over, and if we pride ourselves so much on our democracy that we think it's worth exporting, then we should have freedom to be devil's advocate and at least discuss the idea. Moreover, in a world where you are not allowed to make comparisons betwen Nazis and Jews, comparison between Nazis and un-favoured groups, such as Islamic fundamentalists are quite permitted. I have no problem with the latter connections being made if they illustrate an idea, but I disagree that one should not have the same freedom to make the former connection as well, if one chooses. It's about as simplistic as saying that since black people have historically been the ones discriminated against by whites, therefore balck people CANNOT be racist, and it is offensive to call a black person 'racist' but not to call a white person 'racist'. Not only is this totally a idiotic solipism, but it is dangerously stupid as it denies human nature and means the dialogue is limited to nonsense and half of the picture. My guess is that the constant fighting with ethnically different neighbours has probably polarised at least some Arabs and Jews to racist viewpoints. For instances of anti-Arab racism amongst Jews, you could check out this link:
Anti-Arab graffiti in Jewish settlements

The point has been made - to suggest that only one side of a conflict is capable of racism or even Nazi-esque behaviour, as is being suggested here and by G.Bush and elements of the right-wing media (the irony of right wingers throwing the term 'fascist' around so freely is not lost on me!) by repeated use of the terms 'fascist' and 'Nazi' in relation to Muslims is not only absurd, it prevents any real understanding of the conflict and thus, a resolution. I do disagree however, with the association of the words Zionists and Nazis if the intention is merely to upset and insult Zionists. If you start out by insulting people (Arabs, Jews, blacks, whoever) and pretty soon you end up hating them and then you want to kill them and the devil's work is complete. (I am not thinking of anyone on this thread, I'm just making the point)

As Raedwulf said, the mindset is everywhere: the Nazis had it, Islamic fundamentalists have it, Zionists have it - or they can all tend towards it at any rate. The need to caricature and demonise your enemied so it becomes all right to kill them, the need to crush all voice of dissent, so insecure is the totalitarianism even when it exercises power etc.,

Worst of all, G.Bush, Rice and Cheney have it in buckets, as do their more right-wing supporters. They have convinced themselves that it is time to silence the whiny, bleeding heart liberals before they turn the whole world 'soft'. Bush etc., seem to genuinely believe they are men of action, hard men taking a soft world in hand. They see the wolrd in simplistic black and white terms where they are the 'goodies', crusaders, democrats and their opponents are all 'fanatics' fascists and lunatics / terrorists. What they do not appreciate is that no dispute was ever solved permanently through violence (it always keeps cropping up again thanks to the resentment it brings, plus violence teaches others how we expect to be interacted with ourselves). Worse, they accuse their opponents of being teh ones with a simplistic view of the world ('the speck in your brother's eye and the beam in your own').

As I've said before, the only military solution to so-called 'terrorism' is some form of genocide. If Bush etc., think that's a reasonable way to deal with terrorism, they have cut away from themselves any moral ground they might have had to stand on. I've already suggested there is a far better way to deal with terrorism - a fair and just world that removes inequalities and isolates the truly wantonly violent (who are few and far between).

One problem many people like myself have with Western foriegn policy is that it is stirring up massive resentment in the Arab world. Let's face it here - while Muslims might have managed to stage a few terror attacks in the west, it is our troops who are in their countries. Our troops were in their countries long before all the recent wave of terror attcaks started, and even before that, our governements were conspiring behind the scenes to manipulate the middle eastern countries to the detriment of their populations. So it's easy to understand how Muslims might feel it is we who are trying to destroy their way of life, and not the other way round. When they try and hit back - and they are not strong enough to attack the west in an all-out conventional war (especially as they lag behind in gthe nuclear race), our governments use it as an excuse to clamp down on our freedom. So, if these so-called Islamic extremists were intending to destroy our democracies, they have our governments on-side helping them out already. Bush etc., won't seem to be satisfied until they've started WW3. The only problem is, people like myself will have to live with it, whether we want to or not, it's a small world.