That is indeed a very apt comparison, but at least the Nazis had snappy uniforms. Isis fighters just wear their PJs to kill people.

What compels people to continually compare a violent group with the Third Reich? Isis is not a Nazi organization, has nothing to do with Germany,etc. What appears to be happening is an attempt to show how really really bad Isis is. It's like this: the announcer comes on and says 15,000 cars will be scrapped this year, if you were to lay them end to end they would reach a third of the way to the moon!

alex, alex...

The reason, which you apparently haven't been taught, is that the National Socialists were the first known modern organization who featured genocide on their masthead. Hence the comparison with ISIS.

Also, TheHammerToss: Paul Johnson characterized Nazi regalia as "The last word in totalitarian sumptuary", which remains true even 70 years later.

The article is excellent, if depressing. Naipaul was way ahead of the curve in his analysis of Islam. “Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey” (1981) and “Beyond Belief: Islamic Excursions among the Converted Peoples” (1998) are excellent books. The first one was written after the 1979 Iranian Revolution. It cost Naipaul a lot of street cred in leftist literary circles. Edward Sa’id denounced him repeatedly. But, Naipaul had already made his bones as a novelist, and he proceeded to ignore the ankle bitters.

There is at least one salient difference between ISIL and the tausendjaehrige Third Reich:

When the National Socialists murdered masses of people, they tried to keep their actions secret. They knew that mass murder was criminal.

When ISIL mass murders their victims, they make full-color videos and put them up shamelessly for all the world to see.

And the leaders of the West excuse their underlying ideology.

Churchill and Roosevelt at least wanted victory, and the Nazi's unconditional surrender. They weren't telling you that most Nazis were really moderates who didn't support the excesses of a few.

The question is, "Can Islam be reformed?" If defeating ISIS would bring about reform, then it would be well worth the effort to go get the murdering jihadis and their supporters. If Islam cannot reform, then there will always be more jihadis no matter what terror group we defeat. It becomes a Sisyphean task.

How many Muslims must die before they decide to reform? 100 million? 500 million? The creed (it is not really a religion) as preached by the Wahhabis and Salafists is totally at odds with Western values. We in the West want to tolerate Islam, but the Islamic radicals don't reciprocate. They want to exterminate us. I believe them. Our pResident doesn't.

It is very difficult to tell who the "moderates" are and who the killers are - just as it was with the Nazis and "moderate Germans." Total warfare and massive killing may be the only way to eventual peaceful coexistence - as it was with Japan and Germany. Many conservatives have realized it. Naipaul realizes it. However, the left would rather wage war on conservatives than on radical Muslims, even when the barbarism is in their face.

"They want to exterminate us."

Prove it in 10 words or less.

gs, how about: "Leader Ali Khamenei Over The Weekend: Death to America."

first Israel and its American bitch arm "moderate" Sunni terrorists in Syria to overthrow Assad's Shia regime. Then the "moderate Sunni terrorists" morph into ISIS and lunge at America's pet Shia in Baghdad. Now America fights ISIS in Iraq, while Israel continues to recruit ISIS in Syria. Looks like the ZOG is getting trapped in its own contradictions. Anyway, its not the first time that "Nazis" and Zionists have connived together. See: 1933-1947.

Folks, as unpleasant as it may appear, going against spiritual principles that I and many others espouse in Christianity, the only solution for the Muslim threat is to kill every last one of them, their families, their friends, their neighbors; to lay waste to their crop lands and salt their wells, to destroy their buildings such that no two stones lay atop one another.

The justification, if one is needed, is that the Muslims are Evil. Whether we are spiritual or worldly, believers or atheists, young, old, gay or straight, male or female, White or Black, or any other combination of the above, the paradigm in which we all repose dictates that some things are good, some bad, and some Evil.

Haxo Angmark, you are beneath contempt.

To the sane people here, I say: It could have been so different! The war between Islam and civilisation has gone on for 1400 years now - but if the West, and specifically the USA and even more specifically its president, had had the will the war would have been essentially over in an hour. Or perhaps a few milliseconds, depending on how one counts it. And not counting the mess left afterwards; the rioting and the like. Muslims are good at rioting. That, and random murder of unarmed innocents, and vandalism, are all they are good at.

Two or three separate instances of a few seconds of thunder and hellfire, on late 9/11 or perhaps 9/12, would have been enough.

But the then President's family and friends would have been hurt financially thereby. So instead, we got several thousand American and a few hundred British military dead and more than that wounded, a bill for several trillion dollars and chaos on a continental scale - caused by attacking a country which, while it was headed by a psychopath, had nothing to do with 9/11. Rather than the culprits.

Daily Mail site seems to be down...

When they get a little closer to hometown USA send a yell and we'll open that 6 pak of whoop ass, until then it's all smoke and mirrors. Only when I see the whites of their eyes in the Leup on my .408 Cheytac will I be sure someone is a threat, I take the word of no one because it seems the universe is now slammed with liars.

Don't start none there won't be none.

May I suggest that interested readers review the history of the Most Serene Venetian Republic's 300-year long series of wars with the Ottoman Empire?

Trying to maintain trade with a rich and valuable trading partner whilst defending yourself from that partner's never-ending attempts to conquer your world is indeed a tricky proposition.

The dynamic of the West's current relationship with the oil-producing trading partners that need us and hate us, is I think similar.

There were also men like Vlad Dragul, men not afraid to spill blood to defend themselves against the Muslim hoards.

http://dpjk.blogspot.com/2015/03/vlad-impaler.html

Actually ISIS resembles more the Bolsheviks than it does the Nazis, in that;
1. The Bolsheviks exterminated about 2 to 4 times as many civilians as did the Nazis. Hitler was a rank amateur compared to Lenin and Stalin when it came to exterminating people.
2. The ideology of the Bolsheviks was more similar to a religion than that of Nazism, though both had many elements of a religion.
3. The Bolsheviks had gods - Marx and Lenin - just has ISIS has their god. The Nazis just had a charismatic , Hitler.
4.The Bolsheviks were intent on WORLD domination - as is ISIS - whereas, at least initially - the Nazis would have been satiated with W.Europe, Eastern Europe, and Russia.

Because Stalin was an ally of the USA during WWII, people forget that before, during and AFTER the war, Stalin was the worst mass murderer in world history (until Mao took the prize 30 years later).