Quote:Actually islamofascism is a term used to inaccurately describe the totalitarian nature of Islam. So it's not quite synonymous with islamophobia.
I didn't say it was synonymous. I'ts obviously not a synonym. How is it inaccurate? I mean that in a technical sense - how does a true Caliphate fail the definition of fascism?
Quote:I'd suggest the term which should be used here is xenophobia. It includes racism but also blind hatred based on religion, creed or any other arbitrary attribute of a collective people.
Please explain.
Quote:anti-Islamic sentiment is based purely on hatred and fear of an unknown other.
That's not true. I was quite supportive of Islam until I found out the details.
Quote:Those who feel this hatred usually have very little real knowledge or experience or exposure to Islam or Muslims, other than through mainstream media and anti-Islamic websites.
Being anti-islamic has nothing to do with hatred. That's just the extreme end of it. The mainstream media and anti Islamic websites tend to make people more supportive. I defended Islam quite a lot when it was just sprint here bagging them. It was exposure to actual Muslims that made me concerned about Islam.
Quote:Yet it is almost as if this is exactly what Hamas wants. It is impossible otherwise to explain its actions.
It is easier to push people to extremists ideologies like that of Hamas and short-circuit basic reasoning if they are suffering. Hitler's rise was a good example of this.
Quote:Palestinian opinion is not only divided between Hamas and Fatah, a division the Israelis are trying to exploit by making life better in the West Bank and more miserable in Gaza, to give Palestinians an incentive to return to secularism and negotiations with Israel rather than nihilist, suicidal terrorism.
Interesting strategy.
Quote:Especially comments like this one: "Further, Israel has imposed a limited economic blockade on Gaza, for which it has been widely criticised. However, it is inconceivable that any nation would allow endless rocket attacks on its civilians without trying to stop them"
Anyone who's actually been following this issue would know Israel imposed the blockade as soon as Hamas attained power and stated at the time that it is purely for the fact that Hamas has power. The rocket attacks were in response to the blockade. It is inconceivable that any nation would allow their civilians to starve under an economic blockade and not take action to remove it... is it not? Or does such reasoning only apply to Israel?
Isn't the destruction of Israel a stated goal of Hamas? If an organisation gains power in a neighbouring country and openly declares their intention to destroy you, the situation is little different to the firing of rockets - action must be taken in self defense. Israel did make diplomatic moves to get Hamas to recognise Israel's right to exist, but Hamas knocked them back. Also, when did the firing of rockets start? When was the last one before the election of Hamas, and the first one after?
Forum
Pages: 
