Talk:Great Satan

That latest addition Shaitan meaning "adversary" is a bit silly. Shaitan means Satan - it is the same root and has largely the same theological meaning.

Indeed in Jewish/Christian/Islamic theology the Shaitan/Satan is the big adversary/accuser of men in the final court, but Shaytan is most certainly not a generic term for someone whom yo do not like/who opposes you in your business/politics etc. Refdoc 22:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since I was the person who originally added that the terms used were Iblis and Shaitan, I'll explain why did it. If someone wrote a paper about the ancient Greeks and the wrath of Jupiter, it would be incorrect, even if Zeus and Jupiter are basically the same thing. That's how I see the term The Great Satan being used, although it is correct to a degree, it's not exactly the same thing. I think there should be a note included that states the exact terms that were used and not what was translated, especially since there are articles on both Iblis and Shaitan. Just my two cents. Lokifer 07:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but th translation previosuly added no meaning, rather it detracted. Satan is also translated as "adversary", fine, but neither Shaytan nor Satan is used in common language to describe someone who simply behaves "adversarial" - unless of course you want to make reference to his/her "devilish"/satanic/shaytani characteristics. Refdoc 09:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Little Satan

I've heard that the Iranian regime dubbed Israel the "Little Satan". Anyone got any sources for this (or for the regime calling the USA the "Great Satan")? Andjam 05:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Powell as Baron Munchausen

>United States rebuilt Europe and Japan after World War II

Only the western half of Europe was rebuilt with US help, the much worse war-demolished eastern and central Europe was totally excluded from the Marshall plan, because USA wanted to hurt the soviet empire with the tremendous costs. Japan was rebuilt not because of any philantropy, but to support the logistics and industrial background of the Korean colonial warfare and the US agression in Vietnam!

>US defeated Communism and fascism

Communism was defeated by Gorbachev and the ordinary people in the soviet bloc.

Fascism was defeated by the Soviet Red Army at a loss of 27 million people. The only reason D-Day was done is that the anglo-saxon were very afraid the soviets will arrive at Calais by 1946 all alone. After the spring 1944 "Bagration" offensive of the soviets started, the Third Reich was over.

It would be great if USA stopped spreading lies. Empires do not have feelings or philantropy.

It would be better if you would shut the f-up with your self-loathing biased preachy drivel. As if it wouldn't matter if Germany, France and Holland ended up in the Soviet block; and I'm sure it;s obvious to anyone, with your secret crystal ball, that Germany and Japan are really just pawns in the wicked US empire.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 (talk • contribs)

"See also" link remoal

I am not trying to censor anything, but if we put every tangentially related topic in that section, it will grow larger than the article itself. We should stick to related terms and the article about U.S.-Iran relations. People will find links to Operation Bagration and allied articles if they follow the link to the Iranian Revolution article in the text. The Zionist terrorism article covers pre-1948 terrorism, and would probably best be found in an article on Iran-Israel relations or Israel-Muslim relations. --Jpbrenna 19:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with Jpbrenna regarding censorship. We have to suppose a good will. But why the person with supposed a good will used a proxy server in Hungary to place his/her views on Operation Bagration and so on? If (s)he really believes in what (s)he is saying, why was a proxy there? Anonymouses have to be censored mercilessly. Usually they do not have a good will.

Some people just use the culture of Freedom of Speech to build a society, where any Freedom is banned. Including Freedom of Speech. Be carefull with them.

I'm presuming good faith, I just thought it was getting cluttered and we needed to stay on topic. Like I said, some of the links belong as "See also" on the articles linked to from this "See also" because they aren't directly germane. --Jpbrenna 12:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic language

I put a "POV-check" template on top of this with "The part from Sayyid Qutb to the Powell statement seems to be somewhat unencyclopedic in tone" as comment. It was reverted out (by the person who made the last edit in article). I am not sure how these are handled usually as I am new (please, do enlighten me), but I would think a second opinion is needed. Nobody agrees with me? RandomMonitor 19:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and will start rewriting the article. I could use help; anyone care to join me? Captainktainer * Talk 14:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Now that I've reviewed the article more fully, this is in horrible shape. The best reference for most of the article is some blog? This article needs serious help. Captainktainer * Talk 14:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]