Now THAT is a well reasoned argument. ;) Kudos to you, my friend. I still haven't seen enough of Iconoclast to label him, but you did get me thinking about his name. So I shall ask him about it tomorrow when we continue our discussion, as he promised.
"Iconoclast has a strange inability to see how his remarks so closely parallel the early antisemitism of pre-Reich Germany of the thirties."
They do, now that you mention it, but then again, many blithe and sweeping generalizations do. I am not going to call him an out and out fascist or anti-Semite at this point, however.
However, as a general point, this argument of yours was effective. "The anti-semites of today speak of "Neo-cons" and the Jews running the world stage as a cabal. The Muslims in particular, as GOOD Muslims, should be the rulers (superior and all) and to be denied such power must have been victims of theft from the devious Jews... Does this sound at all familiar to you? Any of you?"
It does sound familiar to me and your argument has a certain resonance, I cannot deny. And the Left is nothing but singleminded in its drive to master Orwellian language and doublespeak. To use terms to label themselves positively and us perjoratively.
Socialist/Activist/Social Democrat/Liberal (one concerned with rights? could have fooled me)/Liberal democrat/Progressive
Neo-con does seem to be the new buzzword for conspirator, fatcats, the Man, string pullers, puppetmasters, elders of Zion, and all that rubbish.
I won't label a man until I have more of his measure. In this case, I don't know enough of Iconoclast to label him yet, and so I will refrain. But I will now take what you have said into consideration when we continue our debate with him tomorrow.
Its proper when discussing someone to give them a heads up so that, if they want to respond, they may.
You should wait to hear from a Jewish person who feels hated by iconoclast for their religion before you label him an Anti-Semite.
And, any thoughts on how someone who would qualify as having an America-First philosophy could express themselves w/o running into knee-jerk accusations from defenders of the status-quo?
Iconoclast has a strange inability to see how his remarks so closely parallel the early antisemitism of pre-Reich Germany of the thirties.
The only thing close to a parallel to the era in which your mind is stuck is a powerful, headstrong leader who did not hesitate to preemptively invade a weak non-threatening nation on the basis of trumped up charges.
Of course every politician with an overseas problem and every demagogue with an axe to grind can always be counted on to raise the Hitler hobgoblin. History will probably never provide those on thin ice a better diversionary tactic.
But I repeat, there are no parallels here sir and your attempts to overlay 2001 with a 30's and 40's template are pathetic. It matters not how much heat and spittle with which you present them.
His flawed opinions about why we are in Iraq, or extremely off-the-mark comments about giving up on OBL (psst... we're still in Afghanistan) notwithstanding,
Quite so DB, and it seems be a mark of pride for you that we continue to shed blood there while OBL (the evil manipulator that brought death and destruction to Manhattan FOUR years ago) sits comfortably undisturbed just a few miles away ..... smirking, recruiting, training, planning, and executing.
Meanwhile, two nations away, we are busy setting up voting booths, hammering together a gallows for an evil, old despot who was never for a moment a serious threat to our nation, and carrying off the bodies of our dead and horribly wounded sitting-duck troops.
BTW, speaking of recruiting, I see in today's news that we are attempting to raise the recruitment entry age for ALL services to FORTY-TWO.
And so it goes. Have you neocons and Bushies no shame?