Why are people offended by the term "Islamic fascists"?

The Muslims are offended because the term accuratley describes the fact that its people of the Islamic faith who have been behind the vast majority of the terrorist incidents in the world in recent times. Instead of being offended victims, good Muslims should rise up in outrage that their religion has been hijacked by a bunch of 7th centurt radicals, and should work to make the necessary changes from within.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Calling them Islamic fascists is neither jingoistic nor patriotic, it's descriptive. They aren't all from one country, so you can't call them Iranian fascists, or whatever, the unifying factor among them is their religion. The desire of both Osama Bin Laden and Iran is the reestablishment of the caliphate from the middle east to Spain. This is religious movement at its core. Radical Islam seeks to establish Sharia law whenever it gains power, this law is a civil code for the people and is at its heart both a religious and political movement. The Caliphate and its establishment is Islamic Fascism.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Rock

If you can have Islamic fascists, you could also have Christian fascists. However, I'm having a real hard time imagining what would constitute a Christian fascists. It's almost as hard as defining the term Islamic fascist.

Besides, why does Bush need to make these things up? Nobody has ever heard of Islamic fascism before, so I'm wondering wether there's a certain demand for this terminology now. Because otherwise it would just be yet another flowery phrase.

Islamic fascist is a term that many Americans are familiar with, it has been used by many bloggers and talk radio hosts among others.

This whole debate brings up an interesting question about the entire so called "war on terror". Terrorism is a military tactic, not a definable enemy. We, at least in the U.S., are told repeatedly that we are at war, but with who. All of the previous wars have had identifiable, definable enemies. The Kaiser in WWI, the Nazis and Imperial Japan in WWII, the commies throughout the Cold War, but this "war" seems very nebulous. If we are in fact at war with Isalmic Fascists we should by definition be at war with Iran, but we're not. Who are we at war with in Iraq? Fascists? Islamists? Insurgents? North Korea is a throwback to the Cold War against communism...are we still fighting that war since NK is an axis of evil member. If Bush wants to use the term I'm fine with that, but then lets get about the business of being at war and deal with the enemy before the enemy deals with us.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

The desire to reestablish the Islamic Caliphate is an example. This theocratic rule stretches across the region, regardless of national borders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Age_of_Caliphs.gif

Their goal is not to change Israeli policies; it is to eliminate Israel entirely, as they and their Iranian patrons say quite openly. But even this is not the main goal, but only a first step. As they also say quite openly, they are aiming to establish a new caliphate that will recreate what they view as the golden age of Islam. And they want this caliphate to rule over all of the lands of the Muslim empires of the past--from Morocco and Spain in the west to the Philippines in the east, taking in the southern half of Europe, the northern half of Africa, and most of Asia.

Most amazing jew boots