Those who call facts “garbage”, with all due respect, “are quite deserving to be considered as a danger on the level of the original Nazis, if not worse”, frankly. Never mind dangerous facts. They are not direct Godwinian comparisons; Adolf had his own notions of his particular branch of socialism, but what is a commonality here with the Arabic/Islamic form is the antisemitism, anti-Americanism and imperialism.
What is so hard to understand about Arab nationalism + Arab socialism = Arab national-socialism? The Ba’athists, never mind many other Islamofascists, take these appellations unto themselves; even Nasser called himself nationalist and socialist, never mind pan-Arabist. Not garbage; fact. I don’t appreciate any implications that I’m lying merely by repeating what they themselves say.
it is hard to understand why someone takes these empty words seriously anymore. Let me decipher for you a bit:
Nationalism: not necessarily a bad term, nationalists played fundamental role in most countries. In today's Europe nationalists (think Hungary) may save their countries from the abyss brought in by internationalists (think Sweden, Germany)
Socialism: large elements of socialism are present in nearly every regime today. Including the US and the EU.
Arab: Assad's regime is Arab, because the population is Arab.
Mr. Assad managed to build a pluralistic state which was supported by very different segments of the population: his Alawites, Christians, Shia, Kurds, even many Arab Sunnis.
national-socialism: yes, the cheapest trick, combine two words with a hyphen. Let me play this game too... the danger I see is not from Mr. Assad but from the democratic-republican single party rule. Enough, hopefully?