Islamo-Facists?

[JohnRM]

Oh please. I'd love to see a credible source for this assertion (that they want to "assimilate" us). How about we call them Islamo Borg?

Secondly, exactly who are we talking about? Iran? Al Qaeda? Saudi Arabia? Who, exactly?

"I-F" is just an invented boogeyman, in the hope of making the enemy look even more sinister and evil by a lame attempt to link them a term also ties into a historical past, but the whole parallel doesn't work. At all.

If you wanted a real discussion, you'd of used more neutral terms, rather than the talking points version.

Let's see...

Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas wants to "wipe Israel off of the map"

Chechens have wiped out the non-Chechen population from Chechnya, and continue to work to wipe out the non-Muslim population.

Muslims in Kashmir continue to conduct terrorist activities against India in hopes of pushing India out of Kashmir.

Muslims are currently invading Europe and setting up pockets of Muslim communities and attempting to overturn European laws in exchange for Islamic Law.

The Islamo-facists continue to battle in Afghanistan to conquer that country for the cause of Islamic facist rule.

Islamo-facists continue to spread into Africa where they have been shown to attack and war every legitimate government of every country they have significant numbers in, most times causing significant bloodshed.

In the former Yugoslavia, they had conducted massive terrorist action against non-Muslim populations and managed to get away without being called on for it. Of course, I do not particularly support what Milosevic did, but I understand it.

All over the world, Muslims are on the offensive. If you don't admit to it, you must be missing it or you are a Muslim yourself, in which case you are in denial or are complicit.

 

[.Shane.]

All over the world, Muslims are on the offensive. If you don't admit to it, you must be missing it or you are a Muslim yourself, in which case you are in denial or are complicit.

Where did I say they weren't?

Simply trying to drive outside influences out of your country, reassert a former power structure, or destroy a mortal and long-standing enemy...

That's a retardedly low threshhold for calling them "fascist".

I'm not saying you don't have a legitimate question in here somewhere, just if you want a reasonable discussion, you need to use non-partisan/non-politicized/non-propagandized terms.

 

[JohnRM]

So did the Soviets, but they weren't fascists. An argument could be made that many Western democracies want to "assimilate the world to their way of life," but they aren't fascists. Давай! Come on! Let's get a working definition of fascism going and then see how it applies to the Islamists!

Incorrect, because we don't care how people live their personal lives. We will let you be a devout Muslim. We will let you cover your body due to religious beliefs. We will let you pray when you must. We will let you not eat pig. We will let you build Mosques.

We also let you eat four hamburgers and smoke cigarettes. We let you profess your atheistic views. We let you swear and watch R movies. We let you criticize the government. We let you read any book that you wish. We let you drink alcohol. We let you do just about anything you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else.

And we don't let you do it. You are endowed by your creator of choice with inalienable rights to be whoever and whatever you wish. We have men and women with guns and uniforms who stand in defense of that freedom. We don't send young children with bombs strapped to their chests to do that job. We dont kidnap embassy staff when you anger us. We dont fly airplanes into your buildings and murder thousands of civilians. We dont target them. We dont blow up innocent people on trains and marketplaces and buses. We dont behead POWs or other enemy combatants.

Do not dare compare the Free World with the evil regimes of the present and the past. It is a false comparison and a gutless comparison.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I daresay Islamists would be content when all Jews converted to Islam, while joining the NSDAP was not an option...
There are some similarities, but still you can't call the fascist.
Well you CAN call them fascist, like the extreme left calls Bush a fascist...

 

[JohnRM]

Where did I say they weren't?

Simply trying to drive outside influences out of your country, reassert a former power structure, or destroy a mortal and long-standing enemy...

That's a retardedly low threshhold for calling them "fascist".

I'm not saying you don't have a legitimate question in here somewhere, just if you want a reasonable discussion, you need to use non-partisan/non-politicized/non-propagandized terms.

Hey, play semantics all that you wish. We are at war, here. I don't have time for it. They are what they are.

 

[colontos]

Incorrect, because we don't care how people live their personal lives. We will let you be a devout Muslim. We will let you cover your body due to religious beliefs. We will let you pray when you must. We will let you not eat pig. We will let you build Mosques.

We also let you eat four hamburgers and smoke cigarettes. We let you profess your atheistic views. We let you swear and watch R movies. We let you criticize the government. We let you read any book that you wish. We let you drink alcohol. We let you do just about anything you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else.

And we don't let you do it. You are endowed by your creator of choice with inalienable rights to be whoever and whatever you wish. We have men and women with guns and uniforms who stand in defense of that freedom. We don't send young children with bombs strapped to their chests to do that job. We dont kidnap embassy staff when you anger us. We dont fly airplanes into your buildings and murder thousands of civilians. We dont target them. We dont blow up innocent people on trains and marketplaces and buses. We dont behead POWs or other enemy combatants.

Do not dare compare the Free World with the evil regimes of the present and the past. It is a false comparison and a gutless comparison.

I said "an argument could be made," not that I was making it.

What you said is all well and good, but you ignored the central question:

Do Islamists qualify as fascists? Fascist does not simply mean "bad guy," by the way. It means something specific.

 

[JohnRM]

Yes, because they want to force everyone to be just like them.

 

[aussieboy]

Yes, we are at war with so-called Muslims with their so-called faith. They are Islamofascists, and they are a leech on all good people, especially Muslims. May God in his infinite mercy rid all of us of this cancer to humanity.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Yes, because they want to force everyone to be just like them.

This is you definition of Fascist ? So when Europeans spread Christianity they were Fascists ?
When the Soviets supported revolutions in other countries they were Fascist ?
When the Americans wanted to prevent this they were Fascists ?

 

[colontos]

Yes, because they want to force everyone to be just like them.

Breathe with me here... That. Isn't. Fascism. Lots of folks want to force everyone to be just like them. Not all of them are fascists.

 

[Godwynn]

From Dictionary.com

2 entries found for fascism.
fas·cism Audio pronunciation of "fascism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.

1. often Fascism
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Now can we all stop with the definition of fascism?

 

[Nobody]

i voted no just because i hate the phrase

 

[JohnRM]

This is you definition of Fascist ? So when Europeans spread Christianity they were Fascists ?

Yes, if it was forced, and it was in a lot of cases. It is a shame of our history that I am not too proud of.

When the Soviets supported revolutions in other countries they were Fascist ?

Yes.

When the Americans wanted to prevent this they were Fascists ?

No. It is not facism to fight against facism in favor of freedom.

 

[JohnRM]

Let us actually use the true definition, if you wish.

fascist; "A political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)"


Sounds like Iran, Syria, the USSR, etc.

 

[Perfection]

We aren't battling Islamofascism or anything. We're just trying to beat back antiwesternism so that we don't have to deal with it.

 

[amadeus]

We really shouldn't compare it to fascism. At least fascism had a few positive effects; Islamism doesn't have any.

 

[.Shane.]

Now can we all stop with the definition of fascism?

No, because that definition is so general as to be meaningless. Essentially, per that definition, you could substitue fascist for authoritarian or totalitarian or any number of similar terms and there you have it.

Believe it or not, there's are more well-defined explanations, and by those, the term fails.

 

[Godwynn]

No, because that definition is so general as to be meaningless. Essentially, per that definition, you could substitue fascist for authoritarian or totalitarian or any number of similar terms and there you have it.

Believe it or not, there's are more well-defined explanations, and by those, the term fails.

Then keep debating about a useless definition instead of debating a real topic.

Just substitute in Islamism for Islamo-Fascism.

 

[.Shane.]

Then keep debating about a useless definition instead of debating a real topic.

Fair enough. I just think people should be aware when using or believing that term that they're being manipulated.

That said, if we rephrase the question more along the lines of "Are all these various conflicts symptomatic of a larger conflict between the West and the Muslim world?" then I think we have a more honest question.

For my part, I'll try and give an honest answer tomorrow, I'm too fatigued to muster it right now.

 

[Xenocrates]

LOL now it's Shane's turn to plough the lonely furrow.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0111.green.html

This article argues that the term was used to subvert the agenda of the Christian Solidarity Movement, an organisation that seeks to twist US policy into creating a global Christian state. They couldn't outright oppose them, because of democracy (they'd lose votes) and they couldn't go with them because their agenda is spreading Christianity through war. Plus after 9/11 the US needed the help of various governments to go after Al Q. It was the Sudanese government, according to the writer, that the US specifically did not want to alienate. So they found a form of words that would keep the zealots on-side whilst not explicitly saying anything meaningful.

'Tis just politics.

BTW the Christian Solidarity movement sound a little like the West's Al Qaeda. Maybe it's worth keeping an eye on them. Some say that the British/Swiss organisation is trying to create the circumstances whereby the US has no choice but to blindly follow the European's agenda. I.E. we pick the war, the US does the fighting. A cushy little number. That's why I don't criticise Bush any more (I'm a reformed character ), he has a monster task to balance all of these irreconcilable interest groups. OK he's not doing very well but who would?