[Hitman]

Well the discussion has been improving a lot

Will make some replies now, this is the second time because the first one got lost due to striking a bad key , so I will be more direct (Tired of typing already :P ):

If a black community wanted to get rid of a Klu Klux Klan office in their neighborhood, is that fascism?

If a Jewish community wanted to get rid of a Nazi party office in their neighborhood, is that fascism?

That depends on two things:

1-Wether the ku-klux-klan and nazis are meeting on the office just to discuss their ideas and blame the jews & blacks, or wether they are commiting violent acts against those groups

2-Wether the action to take by blacks and jews is to go to the Police and Court or to take the justice in their own hands and act as irrationally and illegally as the nazis or ku-kulx-klans

I do have anything against people being nazi or racist, as long as they don't pretend the rest to be like them through violence, and as long as they don't use violence against anyone. Same goes for any measure taken to eliminate radical groups, wether they are islamic, nazis or whatever. As long as this is done by the police and courts, using a legal and democratic procedure, I have no problem.

Just to clarify this, are you talking about every single Muslim on this planet or just radical Muslims/Jihadists that do something that is against the law in the country they live in? "Get rid of Muslims" is a broad statement, and as such it´s inacceptable.

I agree completely. This is an unacceptable generalization, even if the ideas are wrong, what matters is what the individuals or groups that have them do towards the rest of the society.

Western society has done similar things before. Maybe not mass deportation but mass isolation of so-called "communistic" countries by mounting an "iron curtain" and treating every citizen of those countries as a "commi". Surprisingly, it seemed to be a success. And one can't even really argue that communism ideas are bad (I do not mean totalitaristic attempts/experiments of their implementation).

The "Iron Curtain" was created by Stalin, not by the western countries. Same with the Berlin wall. In our western countries we had (Including the USA, BTW) legal communist parties most of the time, and there was no problem with that. They simply acted in the frame of our Constitutions and respected others that did not think the same. That granted a peaceful cohexistence.

2200 years of no capital punishment

Certainly not because the Torah does not include capital punishments, but because (As the Avon Lady rightly said) the courts and rabbins did a reasonable interpretation of it, far from radicalisms. Good proof that it is the interpretation and not the supposed doctrine of the holy texts what counts. So what is the problem with Islam then? Ain't it possible to do a reasonable interpretation of it? It certainly is, same as of the Torah and Christian Bible. The main difference is that Islam is being used for political purposes by certain groups/countries.

Was Winston Churchill a fascist?

Very close. He even said that the biggest problem in Britain is not having had his own Adolf Hitler (Of course that was said long before WW2) And britain has its own fascist party before WW2. But above fascist in some aspects, he was a brit, and thus he would do anything to save his country from any danger.

During WW2, US Government put all the US citizens of the Japanese origin in camps. Up to day, US are still recognized by the whole world as a democratic country.

Democracy is a form of government, determined by the way the leading class is elected in a state. It has nothing to do with that country respecting or not the human rights declared by the ONU, something the US has not always done. Guantanamo is a good example of what shouldn't be done. If 99% of people in a country vote for hanging suspected criminals before a previous impartial trial, that might be democratic, but it will be against human rights. There is a difference.


Now to some of the solutions proposed:

1-Stop inmigration: What inmigration? Inmigration of radical islamists or any islamist? Are they all the same? How do we distinguish?

2-Deportation of radical non-citizens: Good. But what do we do with the converted muslims that are citizens? How do we deport them?

You are starting to face the REAL problem: Do we ban the Islam as an ideology/religion? Or do we ban simply radical interpretations of it, by punishing acts against the law or provocation to disobey and violence?