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

Fascism implies some form of government. As far as I know, Al'Quida et. al are in the business of launching sporadic, small-scale attacks on Western targets, not exalting some race or nation above others. Nor does it appear they want to centralize authority. If anything, they want to render chaos and dispersal, not centralization. In fact, the organization of Al'Quida itself doesn't display any kind of autocracy, as many of its cells operate without any central direction. Hell, the whole Islamic Jihadist movement is without any central direction, the same people we want to annoint with the title of "Fascists".

Besides, by calling them Fascists we give them organizational legitimacy, instead of recognizing them for the lawless killers they really are. Do we really want that?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

In fact, both have worked within democracies although plainly they don't have the power to overthrow the democratic systems.

So? Many Fascist and extreme right-wing parties have worked through democratic systems. It doesn't change what they stand for.

Quote:

Definitely a conservative and religious one with a different economic system then we have... does that mean rigid control?

No, it doesn't. In fact, Al'Quida operates without any central direction, and as such does not adhere to the Fascist model for government. Furthermore, these groups have no intention of expanding their territories, an important tenet of Fascist doctrine that was apparently lost on the good people at Merriam Webster and Co.

It makes more sense to accept a narrower definition of Fascism because, suddenly, everyone involved in the WoT is displaying characteristics of Fascism, from the terrorists and the ideology they've chosen to pursue, to the Bush agenda of extensive Federal powers over the domestic scene and an interventionalist foreign policy. According to this word game we've chosen to play, this whole conflict is just a bunch of Fascist regimes duking it out against eachother, with no clear semantic lines separating the two. Neither Al'Quida or the U.S. resemble anything like the regimes we have come to associate with the term Fascism.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

Maybe I'm completely wrong here, but I don't remember territorial expansion as being important tenets of the doctrines of fascists such as Franco, Salazar and Vargas.

I'm talking about conceptual Fascism, as outlined in Mussolini's "Doctrine of Fascism", because how we choose to define Fascism is really at the core of this debate, and dictionary definitions seem to be all the rage around here. My take, however, is less limited and far more accurate, since I've actually read it. Mussolini wrote that the State is the "Power which makes its will felt and respected beyond its own frontiers, thus affording practical proof of the universal character of the decisions necessary to ensure its development." There is, furthermore, abundant proof in the text that the inactivity of the state (as opposed to some loose grouping of bandits with AK-47's) would lead to its ultimate demise. In the interest of keeping this short I won't list them all, but I invite anyone to take a look for themselves. Therefore, it is clear that expansionism is a central component in conceptual, and thus semantic Fascism, and thus incompatible with general terrorism.

Fascism also presupposes the existence of a unified state, but I won't get into that for now.

Originally Posted by Duo

The Ayatollahs for years have used their positions in the clergy and government to drive their vision of an Islamic world, they do use ALOT of social control and quite a bit of economic control to keep the populace under their thumbs.

And there are totalitarian and Communist states that have employed the exact same things, but Bush uses the word "Fascism" because it sounds a lot better (and has a lot of emotional charge). Fact of the matter is, although these regimes show characteristics of Fascism, they equally show characteristics of Stalinism, religious extremism, and classic dictarorship; an eclectic of different styles that merits its own category, perhaps, or, in the interests of this debate, something that isn't Fascism.

Most amazing jew boots