GlobalStudies06

15 responses so far ↓

• 1    globalspartan // Nov 3, 2006 at 3:21 pm

  1.) I disagree with Rubin. First because, the proxy president of Iran, mahmound Ahmadinrjad, is an extremist and unstable leader who wants to wipe Israel off the map. This type of threat should be taken seriously. The second reason is that the Middle Eastern countries are mainly Islamic and Muslim dislikes with the western world. If they where combined then they would become powerful force whose unreasonable leaders may cause damage towards the west. And the last reason is that we should learn from the past. So that we can prevent future tragedies.
  Shawna O.

• 2    globalspartan // Nov 4, 2006 at 9:49 pm

  I agreed with Rubin, because:
  A- Her theory that we are in fact facing “Islamist fasism” is far more correct than the term “Islamo fascism.” The comparison of dictionary definitions supports this. When she explained what Islamism is Iraq seemed to fit into that definition. Including this term acknowledges the corruption of the government and the religion, not just the former.
  B- While I cannot argue with Shawna that the Middle is East is predominantly Muslim, they are from different sectors of Islam. While they share a dislike of the West, they share a dislike of each other. In the same way you will not see the different sectors of Christianity banding together any time soon in America, we will not see the different sectors of Islam banding together in the Middle East.
  C- I agree with Rubin that we are playing into what Iraq wants by giving it all of this attention. Yes, it’s a tense situation, but we’re just adding more heat by putting the spotlight on it. It would be wise to back off. We saw what happened when we grew concerned and charged into Iraq- we contributed to a quagmire. By overeacting we could hurt Iran’s future and our own.
  -Kara B.

• 3    globalspartan // Nov 7, 2006 at 12:18 pm

  1. I agree with Trudy Rubin I do not think that it is fair for the U.S to group the Islamic into one group. The group that is a threat is al-Qaeda which are the radicals. This is a very small Islamic group that believes this. So what gives the U.S the right to group them together? 2. I agree with Kara that like Christianity the Muslim religion does not believe all of the same thing. For example between Catholics and other Christians the catholic priest can’t get married while others can. The Baptists religion is more scripturally based while the Episcopal religion only uses the gospels. 3. I agree with this quote by Rubin that says “…political wings and plays to the president’s mantra of good vs. evil. But it obscured the complex nature of the struggle Americans will face over the next decade. It misleads more than it informs”(Rubin 2). I completely agree with this quote Bush said that Iran was evil and linked together the entire country. This was not true and has misled a lot of Americans into thinking that all of the people in Iran are dangerous.
  Jamie I.

• 4    globalspartan // Nov 7, 2006 at 12:48 pm

  I agree with Trudy Rubin, I do not think that it is right to lump all people who follow the Islamic faith together. We are upset with Al-Qaeda the terrorists grope we should not blame their actions on all of the other Muslim groups. Al-Qaeda deserves the balm no all of the Muslim groups. Secondly like the Muslim religion there are religions the United States that follow the same religion but believe different things. Such as Judaism, there are Orthodox Jewish people, Jews or Jesus and the average Jewish person. They all come from the same religion of Judaism however they do not believe the same things. Just like Islam Muslims some of the them like Al-Qaeda and others think what they did was wrong, we do not link all Jewish people together because they do not believe the same things so we should not believe that all Muslims people support Al-Qaeda. Lastly, like Trudy Rubin “The term Islamo-fascism is being used with increasing frequency in the biosphere and in conservative journals as an all-purpose label for extremist Muslims.” (Rubin 1). I agree with this quote I fell that we are enemies with Al-Qaeda not with all Muslims. I feel we are labeling all Muslims as extremist however not all of them are like that. Just like when the people in Iran labeled all of the people in the United States their enemies, it angered us so who are we to turn around and do the some thing to the Islamic people.
  Erika I.

• 5    globalspartan // Nov 7, 2006 at 4:19 pm

  I agree with Rubin that Iran isn’t as serious a threat as many say since “lumping all these groups under a single ‘heading’ creates the image of one worldwide and powerful jihadi movement, rather than ‘different’ groups. There are many different groups with Iran and all these groups do not have the same goal. “There are different groups with different political interpretations of Islam and different goals. There is no real address for ‘Islamo-fascism’” (Rubin 2). By stressing the unity and power of terrorist groups we encourage Osama bin Laden’s ego and reputation. I agree with Erika that we are enemies with Al-Qaeda not with all Muslims. But in most cases we consider all Muslims the “enemy”, even though they are not.

  Alli B.

• 6    globalspartan // Nov 7, 2006 at 4:41 pm

  I agree with Azari that the Iranian threat is severe because the Iran’s proxy president wants to wipe Israel off the map. This threat is too close to “Hilter’s outcry to salvage the world from decadent races” and he ended up killing 30 million soviets. With the “Islamic-Fascism with Iran at its epicenter” it is said they have nuclear ambitions and if no one does anything the results in the future could be bad. I think the world must act before Iran gets too far and its too late

  Jamie W

• 7    globalspartan // Nov 7, 2006 at 9:54 pm

  Out of the two articles I think both authors had great views, but i agree with Rubin that Iran is not as dangerous as perhaps our government is leading us in to. The idea of grouping all of there religions into one heading is incorrect and ignorant to their religious groups. I agree with Rubin because she agrees it is important to stress the difference between religious Muslims and those who use the religion for political purposes. I also agree that not all of Iran is tied up with al-qaeda or other extremest groups, and there are muslims that are not thinking about devoting the rest of their lives to being a terrorist. The biggest point Trudy Rubin had was ” Lumping all these groups under a single rubric creates the image of one worldwide and powerful jihadi movement, rather that disparate groups whose differences can be exploited.”
  Monica C

• 8    globalspartan // Nov 7, 2006 at 10:53 pm

  while reading the articles I kinda got confused with the questions because i felt as if the first article was the one that was “lumping” these groups into one and not giving any of the other citizens any justice. That is like walking into an airport and assuming that every arib you see if going to blow up your plane. Rubin seems to have a wider perspective on the actual citizens of iran and not just these groups that has weapons of mass destruction and who are violent. I believe rubin gave these citizens justice and said that besides all these groups there are other people in Iran who are normal human beings and use religion as religion. I also thought the whole camparrison with hitler was outrageous and seemed to be irrelevant to what he was trying to get across to the reacher. I dont think that the iranians have the power of becoming what hitler was.

  Alex S.

• 9    globalspartan // Nov 8, 2006 at 1:06 am

  1. I agree with Azari that the Iranian threat is severe and that the world must do something. The proxy president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejads, is compared to Hitler in Azari’s article for his, “outcry to wipe Israel off the map and to salvage the world of sin for piety…” People may think that Iran is not a serious threat because because all groups in the country are being categorized together and not all groups are a threat, but the fact that the president (who represents his country to the world) has such horrendus goals and views shows that the country is a problem, and must be dealt with properly. Also, history has proven Iran to be a danger when you look at what has happened in the past and what is happening now.

  -Dylan L.

• 10    globalspartan // Nov 8, 2006 at 9:18 am

  i agree because the threat is sevear and must be delt with.
  2 if it is nessecary to group all of these people under one heading then it is going to happen regardless of the diffrences between them. i do feel that the diffrent groups of people should be diffrent. and three history it has and will repeat itself. one hitler there are a lot of simmilarities, and two look at its past and you will be able to tell the fueture.
  joe affel (probibly the last post)

• 11    globalspartan // Nov 8, 2006 at 10:57 am

  I disagree with Rubin because Iran is a very big threat to many counties around the world. An example of this threat is that Iran has been working on make a nuclear weapon which they should have ready in the next 5-10 years. Another reason they are a huge threat is because there leader is a very control person and wants to take out many counties, for example United States. Finally the reason that Iran is a big threat is because they have not listen to anyone who has try to talk to them. They do not have the right to make nuclear weapons and the U.N has proof to show that they have been working on a weapon which needs to be stop right now.

  [Nick DeViso]

• 12    globalspartan // Nov 8, 2006 at 11:15 am

  My take on these two highly opinionated pieces is that Iran is a burgeoning Middle-Eastern Power that is striving toplace itseelf in the international stage. Radical Islam is a byproduct of nationalism and a “semi-proleterian oriented revolution.”
  Iran holds key resources(Oil) and is therefore economically able to oppose the American super-power. Our inability to view Iran as an actual country puts us in the awkward position of not being able to negotiate with them. This inability dually acts as a damper on our international politics and also causes Iran to appear as a more substantial, capable power.
  The provcerb “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer,” has much honesty in it that we as a country could benefit from.
  In breif, this islamo-facism is nothing but a symptom of nationalism and a clinging faith in past social structures. Peace in the Middle East m*********!

  Always and Forever, Peter Roman

• 13    globalspartan // Nov 8, 2006 at 11:21 am

  I disagree with Rubin; Iran should not be taken lightly and if left alone, could escellate in to something very serious very quickly. Not only has the Iranian president Ahmadinejad said that he wants to wipe Israel off the map, but Iran has been unlawfully mining the material needed to do that and refuses to stop. Ahmadinejad is a very charismatic character, capable of rallying surrounding countries, becoming a very powerful force if it comes to that.

  ~Hope
  (Ha ha Jody )

• 14    globalspartan // Nov 8, 2006 at 11:23 am

  On one hand I agree with Azari. The fact that the Iranian president wants to wipe Israel of the face of the earth is a very serious issue. However, I think it is highly unlikely that we will have another Adolf Hitler on our hands. Trudy Rubin breaks things down. Many Americans have the belief that “all middle-eastern people are the same” and some people may even think “they’re all terroists”. Trudy Rubin explains how different middle-eastern groups are from one another. This stresses her claim that a world wide jihadi movement is unlikely and most likely impossible. I don’t think it’s nessacery to act now, as the problem is seen as more serious than it actually is, however, we also cannot let Israel become eradicated.

  -Mike H

• 15    brazilian lesbians // Jan 29, 2007 at 12:11 pm

  brazilian lesbians…

  “Spearhead of Islamic Empire” or does “Islamo-fascism Obscure” – 11.3.06…

You must log in to post a comment.