Well this is why I tried to keep the focus on the dynamics at hand, rather than let it be obscured by emotional issues.

Again, I'm not debating what you said, just the use of emotive issues in general. This is something done all too often. Most of the actions of the Bush Presidency, rightly or wrongly, were defended in the context of 911. The idea that one could not wait for threats to materialize, or act on faulty and unsubstantial information. Again, 911 was invoked constantly, to obscure debate.

Worse yet is the way how the Holocaust or anti-semitism in general is used to obscure debate about Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. When any criticism of Israel emerges, Israel's zealous defenders will try to label the critics with charges of anti-semitism. A paradox considering Arabs themselves are Semites.

This was even used in response to the Goldstein report, condemning Israel's heavy handed and disproportionate Operation Cast Lead. Read the title of the report, Goldstein Report, and one will see how idiotic the charges of anti-semitism are.

I guess my point is, why can one not debate what constitutes Fascism any more than what constitutes Communism? Why should one be more emotive than the other. Communism killed much more people, and lasted longer, with a greater proportion of the Earth under its sway.
True, I will admit that Fascism from its very inception was much more pernicious, and of far less noble intent than Communism, but both by and large, had disastrous results (Great Leap Forward, Stalinist purges, I need not go on).

I really hope that I have not been insensitive to the issues of your family, if I have then I apologize. But my intention is to try and have a perspective unobscured by emotive issues.