NationStates Jolt Archive

The "War on Terror" is not a "War on Islam." All muslims are not terrorists. However, a large number (again, though, not all) of the terrorists, e.g. Al Quada, the Taliban, Hezbollah, are based, correctly or not, on Islamic teaching. I understand that the term "fascist" is a loaded one, and is often thrown around loosely. Here is a link (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fascism&x=47&y=18) to Dictionary.com's page on "fascism." If we consider the political classification of the terrorists, we see that they do, in fact, fit the definition of "fascist." So, in order to distinguish the "bad guy" muslims from the "good guy" muslims, I believe the term "islamofascist" is appropriate. Your thoughts?

(poll added)

eta: Please link other definitions of terms if you feel these do not apply.

I prefer the term "crazy ideological fuckhead." It takes just about as long to say as "islamofascism", and certainly is more accurate.

I prefer the term "crazy ideological fuckhead." It takes just about as long to say as "islamofascism", and certainly is more accurate.

However, can the term "crazy ideological fuckhead" not also be applied to non-muslim, non-terrorists as well?

there is less fascism in their ideal than at a communists communion of communist commoners. people just throw the word fascism at them because people dont understand both ideals but just assume them to be bad

However, can the term "crazy ideological fuckhead" not also be applied to non-muslim, non-terrorists as well? like bush

Islamofascism is meant to be an negative almost derogatory term. There already is a term for the same thing; Sharia Law. Not all muslims believe in it, and some believe in it more strongly than others. I really don't see the need for another term. Especially one that's meant to distance(islamofascism) as opposed to one that is meant to be understood(Sharia Law).

One doesn't have to attack everything one doesn't agree with.

Islamofascism is meant to be an negative almost derogatory term. There already is a term for the same thing; Sharia Law. Not all muslims believe in it, and some believe in it more strongly than others. I really don't see the need for another term. Especially one that's meant to distance(islamofascism) as opposed to one that is meant to be understood(Sharia Law).

One doesn't have to attack everything one doesn't agree with.

I'm looking for a term that applies to the muslim community that supports and carries out terrorist activity, such as suicide bombing. Is "Sharia Law" the term I seek? What about it is there to understand, in that case?

eta: Attacking everything one doesn't agree with seems to be one of the characteristics of this group.

Islamofascism is meant to be an negative almost derogatory term. There already is a term for the same thing; Sharia Law. Not all muslims believe in it, and some believe in it more strongly than others. I really don't see the need for another term. Especially one that's meant to distance(islamofascism) as opposed to one that is meant to be understood(Sharia Law).

One doesn't have to attack everything one doesn't agree with.

Great. The one time I try and be humourous about politics/religion, Lunatic Goofballs is serious. To add to what he said, the term "fascism" has very little to do with their beliefs. The only thing remotely similar is the violent dislike of people who are different (in this case, ideologically), which was the point I was trying to make (vaguely) in my previous comment.

Great. The one time I try and be humourous about politics/religion, Lunatic Goofballs is serious. To add to what he said, the term "fascism" has very little to do with their beliefs. The only thing remotely similar is the violent dislike of people who are different (in this case, ideologically), which was the point I was trying to make (vaguely) in my previous comment.

I think the term "fascism" has quite a bit to do with their beliefs, which is why I included the Dictionary.com link in my OP.

Great. The one time I try and be humourous about politics/religion, Lunatic Goofballs is serious. To add to what he said, the term "fascism" has very little to do with their beliefs. The only thing remotely similar is the violent dislike of people who are different (in this case, ideologically), which was the point I was trying to make (vaguely) in my previous comment.

Sorry. *pushes you into a vat of hummus* :D

Sorry. *pushes you into a vat of hummus* :D

I know, it's a topic for another thread, but what is in hummus, anyway?

I know, it's a topic for another thread, but what is in hummus, anyway?

I don't know, but apparently I am at the moment.

I know, it's a topic for another thread, but what is in hummus, anyway?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummus

:)

I don't know, but apparently I am at the moment.

:)

I don't know, but apparently I am at the moment.

LOLZORZ!!!1@1 :p

I prefer "oil bearing nations full of evil brown people", simply because that's what the politicians are trying to say, and it'd be nicer if they were just honest so that we could all object to their sentiment.

I think the term "fascism" has quite a bit to do with their beliefs, which is why I included the Dictionary.com link in my OP.

...I suppose you're right. It's just unusual to use the term outside of State context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummus

:)

I like how they think you could confuse it with Hamas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummus

:)
Like I'm going to trust you with wiki links ever again, after your haemorrhoid post!!

I prefer "oil bearing nations full of evil brown people", simply because that's what the politicians are trying to say, and it'd be nicer if they were just honest so that we could all object to their sentiment.

But they aren't all evil brown people! Many of them are more than willing to sell us their oil ;)

Like I'm going to trust you with wiki links ever again, after your haemorrhoid post!!

Hey, I didn't link that. :p

Like I'm going to trust you with wiki links ever again, after your haemorrhoid post!!

See? That's what I got hummus confused with :rolleyes:

...I suppose you're right. It's just unusual to use the term outside of State context.

I guess the main difference is that they have colapsed the State with their religion.

But they aren't all evil brown people! Many of them are more than willing to sell us their oil ;)
Five years down the line, we shall see.

See? That's what I got hummus confused with :rolleyes:
You certainly wouldn't want to dip your crudités in one of the two, that's for sure.

Islamo-fascism is a new buzz word concocted by the right-wing establishment and media to supplement the loosely-used term "terrorist" in the people's everyday conversation.

I think it's also designed to draw attention away from certain Neo-conservatives affiliations with fascism. If you ingraine in the populations synapses that Hitler = Islam, then you will see less people thinking Hitler = Neo-cons.

I preferred the term "Radical Islam", myself.

You certainly wouldn't want to dip your crudités in one of the two, that's for sure.

Or add this (http://www.preparationh.com/) to your hummus!

Islamo-fascism is a new buzz word concocted by the right-wing establishment and media to supplement the loosely-used term "terrorist" in the people's everyday conversation.

I think it's also designed to draw attention away from certain Neo-conservatives affiliations with fascism. If you ingraine in the populations synapses that Hitler = Islam, then you will see less people thinking Hitler = Neo-cons.

I preferred the term "Radical Islam", myself.

"Radical Islam" is good, although I consider myself a radical, and prefer to distance myself from their movement (not being muslim not being enough, I suppose).

Interestingly, the term "islamofascism" may backfire on the right, if you are correct, as I find it draws attention to the right-wing, conservative aspect of "Radical Islam."

eta: I like the term "islamofascism" because it does not apply to all muslims, or Islam as a whole.

Well if we get to call some nutcase Christians Christonazis, I don't see why not use Islamofascists for their Muslim counterparts.

Radical Islam may fit well. I don't think using it damages the word "radical" in any sense since it has a specific application to Islam in this case. This coming from a radical in the economic sense, being a minarchist and all.

Not really, fascism is the belief in the supreemness of the state, radical Islam is the belief in the supreemness of Islam, irregardless of the state. It actually doesn't work as a term, except that just about all Westerners equate WWII as the last "good" war with good and evil clearly defined, and the fascist were the BAD GUYS.

In actual application to the terrorists, no.

In actual application to the terrorists, no.
I still don't see why people can't just stick to Islamic terrorists. It sort of describes them fully already.

Or add this (http://www.preparationh.com/) to your hummus!
OH NOES!

MY EYES ARE ON FIYAR!

Not really, fascism is the belief in the supreemness of the state, radical Islam is the belief in the supreemness of Islam, irregardless of the state. It actually doesn't work as a term, except that just about all Westerners equate WWII as the last "good" war with good and evil clearly defined, and the fascist were the BAD GUYS.

In actual application to the terrorists, no.

In their case, Islam becomes the state, so I believe the term still applies. However, I do recognise that the term "fascism" is extremely loaded. Does being loaded mitigate its accuracy? And, are they, not in fact, evil?

I'm looking for a term that applies to the muslim community that supports and carries out terrorist activity, such as suicide bombing.
Call it "Radical Islamism" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=434314).

Fascism is something completely different. See this text to give you an idea:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

OH NOES!

MY EYES ARE ON FIYAR!

After I posted that, I realised that I was spamming my own thread :rolleyes:
As a practicing non-vegan, however, I find I prefer spam to hummus ;)

Call it "Radical Islamism" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=434314).

Fascism is something completely different. See this text to give you an idea:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

I don't know. After reading the Fordham link, if you put in "Sharia Law" and "jihad" instead of "State" and "war", I think it fits pretty well. I do agree that "radical Islam" is also an acurate descirption.

Call it "Radical Islamism" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=434314).

Fascism is something completely different. See this text to give you an idea:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html
And its adherents radical islamists I suppose? It works.

After reading the Fordham link, if you put in "Sharia Law" and "jihad" instead of "State" and "war", I think it fits pretty well.
Yeah, but you'd be changing the underlying philosophy completely. You could fiddle around with the text and change various words to "freedom" and "democracy" if you wanted. Wouldn't mean though that you can describe various Western political parties as fascists.

I still don't see why people can't just stick to Islamic terrorists. It sort of describes them fully already.
It doesn't copy well on the news?

I think it's more of a propaganda bit. Terrorist works well for me.

As a practicing non-vegan, however, I find I prefer spam to hummus ;)
I'm a meat-eater, and I'd rather consume a plate of haemmorhoids than a plate of spam.

Hummous = tasty.

In their case, Islam becomes the state, so I believe the term still applies. However, I do recognise that the term "fascism" is extremely loaded. Does being loaded mitigate its accuracy? And, are they, not in fact, evil?
Eh... the problem with Islam as a state is that I really don't think they reconize it as such, it's a religion. I could be wrong, but IIRC, fascism doesn't reconize the ability to change your state, wereas these guys are more than happy to take converts to their brand of Islam.

The other issue being that, for the most part, these guys are stateless, trying to bring DOWN a particular state, not force their state above all else (see Nazi Germany).

I would say that they are very bad, yes. Evil is a word that has connotations that I am not prepared to give them just yet.

I'm a meat-eater, and I'd rather consume a plate of haemmorhoids than a plate of spam.

Hummous = tasty.

More spam for me! Mmmmm, Spam! (http://spam.net/index.htm)

eta: I knew this was a topic for a different thread.

It doesn't copy well on the news?

I think it's more of a propaganda bit. Terrorist works well for me.
Perhaps. Radical islamist does too. I suppose Islamofascist is a "cooler" term though, hence the newstations will prefer it.

More spam for me! Mmmmm, Spam! (http://spam.net/index.htm)
Ugh... wartime food is not delicious and nutricious.

Cornflour-based custard? No ta!

Crème Anglaise ftw!

Eh... the problem with Islam as a state is that I really don't think they reconize it as such, it's a religion. I could be wrong, but IIRC, fascism doesn't reconize the ability to change your state, wereas these guys are more than happy to take converts to their brand of Islam.

The other issue being that, for the most part, these guys are stateless, trying to bring DOWN a particular state, not force their state above all else (see Nazi Germany).

I would say that they are very bad, yes. Evil is a word that has connotations that I am not prepared to give them just yet.

Well said! But, didn't Nazi Germany "allow" a good portion of Europe to "join" their state?
And I do think that they would like to force their "state", ie religion, above all else.

Ugh... wartime food is not delicious and nutricious.

Cornflour-based custard? No ta!

Crème Anglaise ftw!

"Creme Anglaise"? Is that some kind of blancmange?

Well said! But, didn't Nazi Germany "allow" a good portion of Europe to "join" their state?
Don't confuse the Nazis with fascists!
But fascism does allow people to join the whole and be represented by the state. They just have to devote themselves to it like everybody else.

And I do think that they would like to force their "state", ie religion, above all else.
No, no, no.

The state is not something you can put in inverted commas. It has a long history as a term that played a huge role in Western philosophy for some time.

Fascists don't believe in the ability of the individual to find meaning or happiness. They don't believe that individuals matter.
Individual people only find meaning within a greater, organic whole. Instead of thinking in terms of "you" and "me", we'd be thinking in "us" and "them".

Fascism is totalitarian in the sense that the state (as a representation of society as the organic whole of which we are only individual cells) is the totality of you, me of our lives and the meaning of our lives. The government represents this greater whole, and that's why the government must rule every second of your life for the greater good. In fact, you don't even have a life.

It is certainly an appeal to the irrational, and some people have called it a religion in the sense that it inspires similar feelings in people. But it is not the same, it's got an entirely different basis to the sort of society Islamists want to see.

Sharia Law isn't about an organic whole. Sharia Law is about god. Islamists don't care about their fellow man, or the country, or ultimately even the Ummah. At least not directly.
They care about their personal relationship with god. They do attempt to impose a vision of society - but it is a different one: Not about "us", but about "god". And they don't do it to make everyone happy and give them meaning and to let the country and society survive like the fascists do. They do it because they think that god will reward them for it.

Put Mussolini and Al Zawahiri together in the same room and see how much they agree on. I'd bet you that it wouldn't be much.

Personally, I think the word "Islamofascism" should get the Godwin treatment. It's a cheap attempt to try and connect these groups with the threat posed by the Nazis back in the day (sic!), and it's used to make actions taken against them seem more legit.

"Creme Anglaise"? Is that some kind of blancmange?
No, it's real custard that's absolutely delicious.

Made from eggs + actual cream.

Mmmm...

there is less fascism in their ideal than at a communists communion of communist commoners. people just throw the word fascism at them because people dont understand both ideals but just assume them to be bad

like bush

Bush isn't crazy, he's just a simple folk, he grew up in texas. Simple state, with simple people. He went to Yale, when it was normal. He's a normal person, and a slightly above president.

Now on the terms of Cindy Sheehan, she is a crazy idealogical fuckhead. She lost her son, she went crazy, her family disowned her. She hangs out with hippies, does drugs ( believe me I saw her, she went by protesting, and I smelled her) It was quite an obscenity. A protest about peace in such a violent way. Cindy Sheehan encourages people to run away from the military, so basically she wants no military. Would I want to live in the anarchic state of Cindy Sheehan? No, because then people will take over our free nation. Like what the atrocities from the Jimmy Carter mess, to Reagan's little "ignore the illegal immigrants" and Clinton's "AIDS quilt", I say Bush is the best president we've had in a long fuckin time. However I do like Gerold Ford alot too, he was a simple man as well. That's why I like George Bush, he's not all white collared and shit. So yeah i'd pick someone from texas than some douchebag from San Francisco, or Portland. Fuckin hippies, their job is protesting, they have no lives. No jobs, well their job is protesting. Now we got kid using the internet for their anti-capitalist websites, using capitalist cameras, computers, and such. Fucking hippies.

Not my war
not your war
it's Bush's war
not yours

Stop acting like you care
'cause you don't
you care about their deaths
not ours
you dont care

you smoke your pot
you drink your beer
you hit your bong

you sleep in a tent, I sleep in a bed
you protest, I work
you play guitar, I play piano
you suck at it, im good at it

You don't shower, I do
You're not clean, I am
You have weed in your pocket, I have money in my pocket
You're not making a difference in life, I am helping people in life

You will die alone, I will die with love by my side
You will be forgotten, I will be a memory


not your war....not...your...life.

-snip-
http://www.schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gif

Yeah, but you'd be changing the underlying philosophy completely. You could fiddle around with the text and change various words to "freedom" and "democracy" if you wanted. Wouldn't mean though that you can describe various Western political parties as fascists.

I agree that substituting "freedom" and "democracy" renders meaningless the analogy. I do not agree that it invalidates the concept of radical Islam as fundamentally fascist.

But yeah I like the term cartman usues.

Cartman: They're called Jawas
Kyle: Jawas?
Cartman: You know, sand people.

I agree that substituting "freedom" and "democracy" renders meaningless the analogy. I do not agree that it invalidates the concept of radical Islam as fundamentally fascist.
But that's what I'm saying...the fascists with their basis of the organic whole of society as represented by the state, and the Islamists with their basis of some god-given rules of life are just as far removed from each other as they are removed from liberalism with its basis of individual rights.

Also: Congratulations...post 1000. And you wasted it on me. :p

Don't confuse the Nazis with fascists!
But fascism does allow people to join the whole and be represented by the state. They just have to devote themselves to it like everybody else.


No, no, no.

The state is not something you can put in inverted commas. It has a long history as a term that played a huge role in Western philosophy for some time.

Fascists don't believe in the ability of the individual to find meaning or happiness. They don't believe that individuals matter.
Individual people only find meaning within a greater, organic whole. Instead of thinking in terms of "you" and "me", we'd be thinking in "us" and "them".

Fascism is totalitarian in the sense that the state (as a representation of society as the organic whole of which we are only individual cells) is the totality of you, me of our lives and the meaning of our lives. The government represents this greater whole, and that's why the government must rule every second of your life for the greater good. In fact, you don't even have a life.

It is certainly an appeal to the irrational, and some people have called it a religion in the sense that it inspires similar feelings in people. But it is not the same, it's got an entirely different basis to the sort of society Islamists want to see.

Sharia Law isn't about an organic whole. Sharia Law is about god. Islamists don't care about their fellow man, or the country, or ultimately even the Ummah. At least not directly.
They care about their personal relationship with god. They do attempt to impose a vision of society - but it is a different one: Not about "us", but about "god". And they don't do it to make everyone happy and give them meaning and to let the country and society survive like the fascists do. They do it because they think that god will reward them for it.

Put Mussolini and Al Zawahiri together in the same room and see how much they agree on. I'd bet you that it wouldn't be much.

Personally, I think the word "Islamofascism" should get the Godwin treatment. It's a cheap attempt to try and connect these groups with the threat posed by the Nazis back in the day (sic!), and it's used to make actions taken against them seem more legit.

I still disagree that a religion cannot be treated as the State, but you make a very valid point about Islam being about the relationship between an individual and God. But, haven't the terrorists forgotten that very point by persuing jihad?

Also: Congratulations...post 1000. And you wasted it on me. :p

Pfft. Thanks. Didn't even notice. Don't consider you a waste ;)

But, haven't the terrorists forgotten that very point by persuing jihad?
Well, Jihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad) is in itself a contentious word. Some people take it as being a very personal thing.

It ultimately comes down to one thing: Do you think that "god" and "society/the nation/us" can be used interchangably without losing meaning (and note, you can't make the meaning of these words case-specific)?
If you do - I guess you can say "Islamofascist". I don't, and that's why I think it is a stupid term.

But even if you choose to use it...never forget to have this very talk with everyone else who uses it. Because if people don't think about these deeper ideas behind it all, then it really is an reductio ad Hitlerum.
;)

Well, Jihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad) is in itself a contentious word. Some people take it as being a very personal thing.

It ultimately comes down to one thing: Do you think that "god" and "society/the nation/us" can be used interchangably without losing meaning (and note, you can't make the meaning of these words case-specific)?
If you do - I guess you can say "Islamofascist". I don't, and that's why I think it is a stupid term.

But even if you choose to use it...never forget to have this very talk with everyone else who uses it. Because if people don't think about these deeper ideas behind it all, then it really is an reductio ad Hitlerum.
;)

LOL and I promise to use "reducto ad Hitlerum" when having those conversations :p

That's a Sharon idea, he wanted to avoid the Judeo-fascism.

Hamas is a bit fascist in the way they manage their socialism.
Tony Blair too.

But Islam is a religion and what you make good or bad of a religion cannot be political. Or call political all religions.
And many, here, are talking religion when having no faith... How can they?

I know of many Usians making politic as a religion...
But Usians are only a few on this planet. A minority in front of Islam or China or India etc... And noting in front of all. :fluffle:

I've to go I heard some noise in the corridor...

So, to kind of summarize what I've gotten from this debate:
Although there are legitimate parrallels to be drawn between radical Islam and fascism, they are fundamentally different, in that one is dependant on the concept of State, the other on a personal relationship with God, each of which denies the other. While accurate on one level, the term "islamofascism" seems to most often be used pejoratively, as an argument reducto ad Hitlerum, by those unwilling to try to understand the terminology involved.

:cool:

So, to kind of summarize what I've gotten from this debate:
Although there are legitimate parrallels to be drawn between radical Islam and fascism, they are fundamentally different, in that one is dependant on the concept of State, the other on a personal relationship with God, each of which denies the other. While accurate on one level, the term "islamofascism" seems to most often be used pejoratively, as an argument reducto ad Hitlerum, by those unwilling to try to understand the terminology involved.

:cool:
Sounds like a fair summary to me. :D

The "War on Terror" is not a "War on Islam." All muslims are not terrorists. However, a large number (again, though, not all) of the terrorists, e.g. Al Quada, the Taliban, Hezbollah, are based, correctly or not, on Islamic teaching. I understand that the term "fascist" is a loaded one, and is often thrown around loosely. Here is a link (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fascism&x=47&y=18) to Dictionary.com's page on "fascism." If we consider the political classification of the terrorists, we see that they do, in fact, fit the definition of "fascist." So, in order to distinguish the "bad guy" muslims from the "good guy" muslims, I believe the term "islamofascist" is appropriate. Your thoughts?

(poll added)

eta: Please link other definitions of terms if you feel these do not apply.

No it isn't. Even the craziest, Wahabiest, terrorist Muslim theocrat is not racist. Well, he might be, but it's not a part of his political ideology.

Fascism fit Saddam Hussein better than it fits the terrorists. He had a pan-religious pro-Arab political system. The terrorists don't care what race you are as long as you're Muslim, or leave them alone (as they see 'left alone,' not as we see it.)

That's a Sharon idea, he wanted to avoid the Judeo-fascism.

Hamas is a bit fascist in the way they manage their socialism.
Tony Blair too.

It seems it really can't be said too many times.

Socialism is the opposite of Fascism. When Fascism was taking over Germany it was the socialists who opposed it. It was the conservatives, both there and here in America, that supported it.

No it isn't. Even the craziest, Wahabiest, terrorist Muslim theocrat is not racist. Well, he might be, but it's not a part of his political ideology.

Fascism fit Saddam Hussein better than it fits the terrorists. He had a pan-religious pro-Arab political system. The terrorists don't care what race you are as long as you're Muslim, or leave them alone (as they see 'left alone,' not as we see it.)

I disagree. They hate the Jews.

It seems it really can't be said too many times.

Socialism is the opposite of Fascism. When Fascism was taking over Germany it was the socialists who opposed it. It was the conservatives, both there and here in America, that supported it.

Yes, fascism is in fact a conservative, right-wing idealogy. Just goes to show that the whole conservative/liberal, left-wing/right-wing debate says nothing about Right and Wrong.

I disagree. They hate the Jews.
And the fascists didn't. In Italy, Jews were very welcome members of society, until Hitler imposed his race policies on Mussolini.

Remember:
Nazism - racial group
Fascism - national group

Real fascists won't exclude anyone because of race or religion, as long as they see themselves as part of this organic whole and work towards the common good (in other words: support the government).

And the fascists didn't. In Italy, Jews were very welcome members of society, until Hitler imposed his race policies on Mussolini.

Remember:
Nazism - racial group
Fascism - national group

Real fascists won't exclude anyone because of race or religion, as long as they see themselves as part of this organic whole and work towards the common good (in other words: support the government).

Another good point, however, the Dictionary.com link in my OP mentions racism as a possible (but not neccessary) trait of a fascist regime. They may make the apparently quite common mistake of confusing Nazis and pure fascists.

I disagree. They hate the Jews.
Actually, I'm sure you can say that they do. They hate Israel and Israeli jews, but not Judism itself per se.

Though, I think it is part and parcell of Islam viewing itself as the 'pure' branch of the three Abramaic traditions (Judism, Christianity, and Islam) so you get very weird statements about death to the Christians and Jews, and then statements about how they respect Jesus and the prohets of the Old Testiment.

Actually, I'm sure you can say that they do. They hate Israel and Israeli jews, but not Judism itself per se.

Though, I think it is part and parcell of Islam viewing itself as the 'pure' branch of the three Abramaic traditions (Judism, Christianity, and Islam) so you get very weird statements about death to the Christians and Jews, and then statements about how they respect Jesus and the prohets of the Old Testiment.

Again, racism is a possible, but not neccessary, trait of a fascist regime, so whether radical Islam is racist or not is an argument for another post ;)

I disagree. They hate the Jews.

Everyone hated the Jews until the Holocaust.

So, in order to distinguish the "bad guy" muslims from the "good guy" muslims, I believe the term "islamofascist" is appropriate. Your thoughts?

That people shouldn't make up and use words that would otherwise be considered to be contemptibly poor usage - even coming from a twelve-year-old with a booger hanging from his nose, let alone Karl Rove.

The correct term would be "Islamic Fundamentalism", which I'm sure has been said ten times over in this thread already.

I would like to use Qutbism-Maududism, but due to the utter ignorance of anything islamic and almost zero awareness of the scholars behind the modern salafi movement, I stick to islamism.

I also believe islamofascism is a stupid term. It only serves to mislead, not educate.

Islamofascism is such a stupid term. They are just trying to link this war to WW2 even though they are completely different wars.

Sept. 2: A new video released Saturday by al-Qaida's propaganda wing and featuring an American member of the terrorist group urged all Westerners to convert to Islam.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=72060d53-dfea-44a3-929c-9a79058fd9f5&f=00&fg=copy

http://www.webster.com/dictionary/fascism
Main Entry: fas·cism
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

...hmm. Sounds like al-Qaeda to me. It especially sounds like pre-invasion Afghanistan, where kids couldn't fly kites, men had to keep beards, there was no economy and they blew up the Buddas. :(

It seems it really can't be said too many times.

Socialism is the opposite of Fascism. When Fascism was taking over Germany it was the socialists who opposed it. It was the conservatives, both there and here in America, that supported it.

Buuuuuuurppp, abdullah! :eek:

Terminus, end of the line, step out, thanks...

I would like to use Qutbism-Maududism, but due to the utter ignorance of anything islamic and almost zero awareness of the scholars behind the modern salafi movement, I stick to islamism.

I also believe islamofascism is a stupid term. It only serves to mislead, not educate.

My dear friend you want all these magazines to go out of business, all that nice propaganda thrown to the bin?
Let it do, some prefer to dream, others will manage their sleep.
The big country needs the war to economically survive. The education will never make friend with war.

As they are christianz, I know they love me. :gundge:

Islamofascism is such a stupid term. They are just trying to link this war to WW2 even though they are completely different wars.

Exactly. It's a buzzword meant to make people think that America's latest foreign wars are a battle against 'evil'.

Eric Margolis just posted a rather interesting article on the topic (actually, he was a little more 'foaming at the mouth' than usual, but it's right on the money.)



Both the terms `terrorism’ and `fascist’ have been so abused and over used that they have lost any original meaning. The best modern definition I’ve read of fascism comes in former Colombia University Professor Robert Paxton’s superb 2004 book, `The Anatomy of Fascism.’

Paxton defines fascism’s essence, which he aptly terms its `emotional lava’ as: 1. a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign `contamination.’

Fascism demands a succession of wars, foreign conquests, and national threats to keep the nation in a state of fear, anxiety and patriotic hypertension. Those who disagree are branded ideological traitors. All successful fascists regimes, Paxton points out, allied themselves to traditional conservative parties, and to the military-industrial complex.

Furthermore, he goes on to intimate that the actions of the United States have far more Fascist elements than the acts of Islamic insurgents and jihadists;

However, there are plenty of modern far rightists with neo-fascist tendencies. But to find them, you have to go to North America and Europe. They advocate `preemptive attacks against all potential enemies,’ grabbing other nation’s resources, overthrowing uncooperative governments, military dominance of the world, hatred of Semites (Muslims in this case), adherence to biblical prophecies, hatred of all who fail to agree, intensified police controls, and curtailment of `liberal’ political rights.

They revel in flag-waving, patriotic melodrama, demonstrations of military power, and use the mantle of patriotism to feather the nests of the military-industrial complex, colluding legislators and lobbyists. They urge war to the death, fought, of course, by other people’s children. They have turned important sectors of the media into propaganda organs and brought the Pentagon largely under their control.

http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2006/08/the_big_lie_abo.php

Now I tend to roll my eyes when I see the 'adherence to biblical prophecies' stuff, which I believe is an allusion to Bush being some sort of crazy religious nut, which I don't buy.

I generally agree with him about the Jihadist movement in general, although in the case of Iran, I can see many totalitarian elements. I'm not familiar enough with the laws of Iran to know whether or not individuals have any sort of protection under the law, but the country definitely has a 'fear of foreign contamination'; it's practically their driving goal.

But the main point, is that Islamic Extremism doesn't need to be branded with the Fascist label, it's bad enough, and it's not an apt description.