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

Well, no... it may very well apply for the Taliban but it doesn't apply for Hamas or Hizbullah... and I haven't read anything of their visions (were they allowed to propogate unfettered) that seem fascist. In fact, both have worked within democracies although plainly they don't have the power to overthrow the democratic systems.

Al-Qaeda maybe has a fascist vision. Definitely a conservative and religious one with a different economic system then we have... does that mean rigid control? I'm not sure, maybe if we take market capitalism to be the only form of uncontrolled economy (although it is not nearly realized anywhere). I think it would be interesting to see if they would fit a classical fascism definition (minus racism). It's possible they would, but I'm not convinced that it's inevitable. If you _really_ think Bush is a fascist then maybe you have some right to call these group fascist... but it's clear that Bush is nothing near the classical definition.

It's true that not everyone is calling all Muslims fascists. However they are calling all Muslim groups that will take up arms fascists since all Muslim terrorists are considered Islamic fascists. This is problematic considering the term terrorist (state department definition) is incredibly political in itself. Only "non-state actors" can be terrorists doesn't make a lot of Muslims who happy. Also, calling them Islamo-fascists makes anyone who supports one of these movements supporting fascism and therefore guilt by association. And it's clear that a lot of Muslims are willing to call Hamas' actions just as acceptable as the IDF's.

You also have the fact that Islam is already a religion that Muslims feel is being picked on and this doesn't help. Israeli positions in the occupied territories do involve stringent economic controls and destruction of opposition, censorship, etc... but we wouldn't call them Judeo-Fascists... and it's not that I think we should.... but, I am sure many Muslims feel that this term is only acceptable because it's being used against Muslims... and I do think to an extent that is true.

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

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by lordjames

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.

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 was speaking idiomatically.

I don't have a very high opinion of the way the Israelis are treating the displaced Palestinians, either.

However, I do not see how you can not classify organizations like Hezbollah or the Ayatollah family as fascists. 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.

Maybe I do have a loose term of Fascism, but when someone in a seat of power can make decisions regarding basic social interactions of people (for example, what religion they choose to practice, who they want to marry) and reinforce those decisions with threats of violence or economic sanction without any sort of reasoning with concern to public safety or economic growth-- that starts to set off alarms in my head.

Because I do not want to convert to Islam or support the idea of forming new statehoods (as is with palestinian struggles), in the mind of the muslim extremists, that makes me worthy of a violent death. Because I do not conform to their worldview, they want to see my way of life squelched, I'd call that Fascism.

Most amazing jew boots

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

Personally i don't believe i have clouded vision about who we are fighting. We are fighting terrorism on a global scale. Some might say that we are just fighting some of the middle eastern nations, but as far as i'm concerned they are our biggest threat right now... as far as terrorism goes. Of course there are other organizations in different parts of the world, i.e. Japan and Spain. But they currently aren't a problem for us. Terrorism is in my opinion a larger threat than an opposing country because terrorism is constant. It doesn't stop to sign treaties or cease fires(Hezbollah I believe is merely biding its time and building up its arms and munitions to strike again).
As far as the term islamic-fascist, we might as well call em like we see em. The extremists want a form of government which is very similar to a fascist regime, a fascist regime with a crazed and dillusional leader. Take for example Iran's leader who's name i can barely pronounce much less spell. He has denied the want for nuclear weapons in every interview and press conference that he has allowed, yet he test fired a long range missile from a submarine(quite recently). On top of that he has approved the use of heavy water reactors which produce large amounts of irradiated plutonium, plutonium is the preffered substance for a nuclear weapon. Does this not sound like Hitler before he started his war? People were rejoicing in Britain when the prime minister came back with his signed document that guaranteed peace. And we all know what Hitler did next don't we?
No, I need no help in defining the term Islamic-Fascist, nor do I have a problem with calling these people Islamic-fascists. Wesker, I do agree with you that we need to do something about these people before they do something very bad again. I think if another Republican president is elected and they don't lose many seats in congress then Iran will be next on the list. We can't let that man have nuclear weapons, mainly because he's a power hungry freak. On the other hand i disagree with you. I believe we need to remain in Iraq because even though some of the people might no like it, they need us to keep the peace. We need to finish the job.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Dude, Cloudiroth, do you think it's a good idea to equate Iran with Nazi Germany when you can't even bother to search for the leader's name? It doesn't really do much for your credibility is all I'm saying.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

First of all I can say what I want. Second I do know his name (Ahmedenijad). I was simply saying that to put a bit of humor into the post. But thanks for caring... and don't call me cloudiroth, I just thought it was the neatest built in avatar, i.e I don't want or need to go looking for one. But im not saying he's a nazi, i'm saying he's a fascist. I know they are similar but to me they are different.
P.S.- I consider myself extremely well informed if quite a bit too conservative for most. If you will notice Lurker, I didn't say I didn't know his name, I simply stated that i couldn't pronounce it properly or spell it. It's called a language barrier, IT MAKES ME NOT TALK ARAB GOOD. Great, now that I'm sure i've offended a few people, I will respectfully resign my post.

How ya doing, buddy?

What relevance does pronounciation have in a web forum?

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

I was being an animated writer. Maybe you didn't pay attention when they were teaching you to write in English, either that or you majored in English and you were taught by one of those "all about structure" proffessors. Either way why can't you just shut up about it? The point is I know who the guy is so say something that has to do with the topic or stop typing. I hate critical people... anyway, I believe that the term Islamic-fascist is the proper given name for them... until someone thinks of something better. A Lurker I would appreciate it if you wouldn't nag me again. I don't want to waste my time talking about pronunciation. Mahmoud Ahmedenijad(or however you spell it) is a waste of breath for me to say... I label him Hitler jr., from now on that is how i will refer to him... kk?
P.S.- I noticed the link smartass, but too late. Why? I already knew, have fun rotting in ur basement, I am going to a party.

How ya doing, buddy?

He's going to be fashionably late, arriving close to midnight and everything.

Quote:

IT MAKES ME NOT TALK ARAB GOOD

Since Ahmadinejad isn't an Arabic name, that shouldn't matter.

I was speaking idiomatically.

That's something i didn't know Styphon. What is it? I'm sorry I was so rude about it, I just don't like it when people talk about stupid shit like Lurker did when I'm trying to have a conversation. I'm not being sarcastic, I would like to know. Oh, and that was supposed to be humorous too. I see you didn't find the humor in it... sorry if ur offended or anything.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Iranians are Persian.

Furthermore I'm still not getting this. You admit incompetence, it is funny, but when I point out your incompetence, it is not funny? Is this how writers only like constructive criticism if it's couched in compliments? Maybe that's why all your fanfictions are shit, Cloudiroth.

Enjoy the party you've taken twenty minutes to go to.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by a lurker

Dude, Cloudiroth, do you think it's a good idea to equate Iran with Nazi Germany when you can't even bother to search for the leader's name? It doesn't really do much for your credibility is all I'm saying.

Yeah, because that's the only thing hurting his credibility, in that post. He sounds so delightfully "Fair and Balanced", doesn't he? LMAO.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I hadn't gone to the party yet. I was still getting ready. Where did I admit incompetence? I didn't. I just want you to stop nagging. If ur saying I admit incompetence because it's hard to pronounce then you obviously STILL can't see the humor in my comments. Soluzar, yes, I admit that I am very right wing when it comes to most issues, though I don't back the president as much as I used to. He has become... a wussie. Lurker, Iranians are Persian eh? Actually I knew that, I just couldn't remember. It kind of jumped up from the back of my mind now that i've read it.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

That is a strange party, where getting ready involves the internet.

Look, all I'm saying is that while you're equating people to Hitler, you probably should do everything you can to shore up credibility, since that is an... extreme comparison to make. Maybe it's not the best time to be joking about how you're a culturally illiterate buffoon, you know? But what do I know about these things? You think it's nagging when people point out that you aren't as funny as you think you are.

WHATEVER MOM, I'LL DO WHAT I WANT

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Apparently i'm not. Either that or sarcasm doesn't exist where ur from. I probably read more books in a month than you have in ur life, so don't call me illiterate. I don't care how funny you think I am, as long as I derive some pleasure out of my words that is all that matters. I think it's nagging when people say things like,"What relevance does pronunciation have in a web forum?". Honestly, what do you do with ur life? Sit on gamingforce all day long? Who the hell are you to bitch at me about miniscule things such as that? I was just checking the post before i got in the shower last night, i don't have to tell you about my personal life, go do whatever it is that you people do when ur angry and sexually frustrated. Personally, I think you need to get laid, it'll take ur mind off the little things.

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

Whatever, you know UR both the same. UR bitching at me now because I typed UR? But UR right. I won't post on this thread anymore. It's useless to try and talk to you people after someone starts to complain. I guess since UR both old users you kind of stick up for each other eh? Well, it's great that you have a superiority complex because of the forum and all, but try not to be such a dick. Oh and Devo, perhaps you should read my earlier post, I did give a reason for comparing him to hitler.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Lets sidetrack this a tad more. Why not? Everyone else is doing it.

I remember back when I used to visit the more political-esque topics in political palace. Long time ago. Back before it became so nit-picky and immaterial. Sidetracking over any little thing. Or maybe it did from the start, and I just happened to visit during a 'down' time.

Although, to some extent, it always did seem a place where everyone just wanted other people to verify their own comments. At least back then, what nit-picking there was seemed normally on topic and at least intellectual, as opposed to... whats a nice word for stupid?

Every now and then I come by and visit a non-sceince thread in the Political Palace... however, it rarely lasts longer than reading a fraction of a thread. Shame. I think it used to have higher standards...

What was Bobo's new mission statement?

I was speaking idiomatically.

no he lied like hitler. nt on the same scale but he lied. he said he didn't want weapons capability.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

But it is. He did it in the same way you see. I never said that Americans have never acted like him either. Hitler didn't lie about weapons but i think in the end everything will be similar.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Devo

So that makes any leader comparable to Hitler simply because, *gasp* they lied about their desire for weaponry?

Are you serious?

Hitler's a popular guy to be compared to. He could paint too, and quite well might I say.

I've also heard Bush compared to Hitler. I dont think bush is a very good painter though... I mean, I don't have any evidence either way... but... it just doesnt seem his thing.

The comparison to Hitler in this specific example is nothing unusual either. I've heard time and time again from veterans and those alive during the time of WWII, that the poltiics and the media right now sound very similiar to just before WWII. I've also heard that Middle Easterner, whatever his name is(like I really care), compared to Hitler a number of times both by people and in the media.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Thank you. Finally someone can not nit-pick about every little thing. Devo, you are saying the same thing over and over again come up with something new. Onsce, I understand what you are saying. Although, The Iranian president is lying about things that are a bit more important than most American lies. Devo, I undersand that every nation has a right to try and better itself, but Iran is led by a fanatic, and fanatics in the end are never good, especially when they have WMDs.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Devo

That doesn't justify the comparison or make it a rational one.

You're right, it doesn't nescarilly. However, I figure theres got to be some logic to it if I hear it over and over again.

I think the idea is really more of a land mine sort of comparison. Sure, everything looks cool. Take that step though, and loose your leg. Hitler was doing great things, well he was... then.. well... ya... the jews... you know.

Thats sort of the point. Sure, the guy seems decent enough. However, what are his true intentions? And with duel use facilities... Its sort of on he same grounds as Iraq. Attack with no proven WMDs, or do nothing and hope for no WMDs. I know its not the exact same, but the concept is pretty much the same.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Aramaethe

I think it's nagging when people say things like,"What relevance does pronunciation have in a web forum?".

I don't think 'nagging' means what you think it means, Cloudiroth.

Double Post:

Originally Posted by Aramaethe

no he lied like hitler. nt on the same scale [as Hitler] but he lied.

[...]

Hitler didn't lie about weapons but i think in the end everything will be similar.

I only picked on you for not having the wherewithal to google a dude's name, and furthermore bitching like a nancy boy when someone called you out on it, because frankly your logic speaks for itself.

or in other words,

Double Post:

Originally Posted by avanent

You're right, it doesn't nescarilly. However, I figure theres got to be some logic to it if I hear it over and over again.

Counterpoint: mormons think their religion was not started as an enormous prank. There are a lot of mormons! Does this make them right?

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