I hear the word batted around a lot. I guess it's been called a neo-conism. Basically it's what the neo-con types are labeling the ideology that we're fighting in the Global War on Terror. In this forum, however, I notice an extreme amount of objection to the word.
Part of me wants to agree that this is just a label created by the right. Sort of a...catch-phrase.
But... When I really sit down and think about it. When I think of what lies 500 miles to my south in Somalia. 1000 miles west in the Sudan. Maybe what...20 miles across the Gulf of Aden in Yemen. Not too far north in Eritrea, I can't help but be in full agreeance with the term.
Then, I further examine the situation of the Palestinian's, the extremist elements that still exist in Saudi Arabia. I recall the stories of Leila and what she told me about her parents struggles in Iran and her own experiences there. I think of the stories from Palestine from my friend Gad here in 5th PSC.
I just find myself sitting here thinking really hard for a term that more accurately describes this ideology other than Islamo-Fascism.
Do you agree with the concept or disagree? And if you disagree, could you explain why? What elements of this problem differ from the term? It's essentially fascism under the guise and force of heavy handed Islam. It's in different forms from place to place, but the basic concept still rules true whether you are talking of Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Eritrea, Iran, and Palestine.
Is it right to call it anything? If it could be and should be called something, what should it be?
I do not find it to be intentionally disparaging in any way. The term does not apply to the overwhelming majority of moderate, peaceful followers of Islam in the world. However, there are groups that share a common belief which is an area carved out in the world that is ruled by their extremist beliefs. One needs to look no further than the Taliban in Afghanistan to see what IslamoFascism is all about.
Traditionally, fascism is a system of government that relies on a population that subscribes to fervent nationalism. In this case, nationalism is replaced with religious fanaticism. Couple that with either expelling or killing those who dissent or disagree (again, see the Taliban), and you have a Fascist ideology that threatens large areas in the world.
In the end, the term "IslamoFascist" is calling it what it is....not some label used during an election period.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
LeninFlux and I have had a couple of debates about this term. I think it's pure inflammatory shit, and extremely inaccurate in describing the people and situations it is trying to describe.
The conversation beginning with this post is pretty good:
Traditionally, fascism is a system of government that relies on a population that subscribes to fervent nationalism. In this case, nationalism is replaced with religious fanaticism.
I can't believe a couple of sentences that show this much understanding came in your post showing support for that term. You just laid out much of why what we're dealing with here isn't fascism. So why call it that and not try to find some term that better describes it? Fascism is nationalist, corporatist, and dictatorial. Al Qaeda and other terror groups aren't any of those things.
Moreover, these groups are all so different from one another it's pretty silly to try to encompass them with terms we've already beat to death to the point of meaningless anyway. Why Islamofascist and not Islamonazi? Is a Muslim democrat an Islamocrat, maybe Islamlican?
I don't get why you like using the term when you know you're distorting its meaning.
I understand what Little Wing is saying to a certain extent, and his experience with this concept first hand certainly makes him more of an expert than I. However, I am not sure that fascism is the proper term to describe the offending parties in this instance. Is it fair to replace nationalism with religion and still call it fascism? Perhaps a different, and more accurate term should be applied in its place. What that term is, I cannot say and it is probably not my place (I am not of the "catch-phrase" persuasion). And extending further on that topic, does the current term accurately describe all of the derivatives, versions, and types of aggression in the name of Islam? In other words, is it the proper umbrella term for what is happening in dispersed non-state sectors of Somalia, the Sudan, and Afghanistan compared to the more advanced state-affiliated versions in Iran and Syria? I am not so sure at this point.
Traditionally, fascism is a system of government that relies on a population that subscribes to fervent nationalism. In this case, nationalism is replaced with religious fanaticism.
I can't believe a couple of sentences that show this much understanding came in your post showing support for that term. You just laid out much of why what we're dealing with here isn't fascism. So why call it that and not try to find some term that better describes it? Fascism is nationalist, corporatist, and dictatorial. Al Qaeda and other terror groups aren't any of those things.
Moreover, these groups are all so different from one another it's pretty silly to try to encompass them with terms we've already beat to death to the point of meaningless anyway. Why Islamofascist and not Islamonazi? Is a Muslim democrat an Islamocrat, maybe Islamlican?
I don't get why you like using the term when you know you're distorting its meaning.
The answer is quite simple and has been verbalized by those who have used the term - this is a different kind of fascism (than what the world saw emerge in the 1930s) but shares many aspects. Yes, there are numerous terrorist groups that have different goals, but they all fall under an umbrella of the desire to establish an Islamic caliphate that transcends many nations but is united. The term is distorted insofar that nationalism is replaced with religious fanaticism....that aside, there are numerous parallels to what "IslamoFascists" seek to establish and the goals of, say, Nazi Germany. If you want a good look at what a fascist state guided by Islamic extremism looks like, one has to look no further than the once Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
The answer is quite simple and has been verbalized by those who have used the term - this is a different kind of fascism (than what the world saw emerge in the 1930s) but shares many aspects. Yes, there are numerous terrorist groups that have different goals, but they all fall under an umbrella of the desire to establish an Islamic caliphate that transcends many nations but is united. The term is distorted insofar that nationalism is replaced with religious fanaticism....that aside, there are numerous parallels to what "IslamoFascists" seek to establish and the goals of, say, Nazi Germany. If you want a good look at what a fascist state guided by Islamic extremism looks like, one has to look no further than the once Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
The Taliban wasn't really fascist, though. And I'm not sure Mullah Omar viewed himself as the Caliphate. I actually don't know who any Muslim groups view as the Caliphate. However, I'd bet most of them disagree.
Anyway, Mussolini essentially invented fascism, so I'm not really sure a new type can emerge while still preserving any meaning within the word. It's pretty clearly a buzz-word with the end of scaring people, because everyone hates fascists.
Why not Imperialist Islamic Militarism? I dunno, but I hate it when people go for what sounds best without regard to the meaning of what they're saying.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:57 pm Posts: 941 Location: Buffalo
Peter Van Wieren wrote:
LeninFlux wrote:
The answer is quite simple and has been verbalized by those who have used the term - this is a different kind of fascism (than what the world saw emerge in the 1930s) but shares many aspects. Yes, there are numerous terrorist groups that have different goals, but they all fall under an umbrella of the desire to establish an Islamic caliphate that transcends many nations but is united. The term is distorted insofar that nationalism is replaced with religious fanaticism....that aside, there are numerous parallels to what "IslamoFascists" seek to establish and the goals of, say, Nazi Germany. If you want a good look at what a fascist state guided by Islamic extremism looks like, one has to look no further than the once Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
The Taliban wasn't really fascist, though. And I'm not sure Mullah Omar viewed himself as the Caliphate. I actually don't know who any Muslim groups view as the Caliphate. However, I'd bet most of them disagree.
Anyway, Mussolini essentially invented fascism, so I'm not really sure a new type can emerge while still preserving any meaning within the word. It's pretty clearly a buzz-word with the end of scaring people, because everyone hates fascists.
Why not Imperialist Islamic Militarism? I dunno, but I hate it when people go for what sounds best without regard to the meaning of what they're saying.
well, we are trying to define the people we are at war with. They are not a nation state, so Imperialist Islamic Militarism sounds good to me. I agree that Islamo-fascist isn't the most accurate label. Maybe even Imperialist Shari'ah Militarism. The anti-Islamic reaction to the radical islamic reaction to the pope pisses me off just as much as the opposite reaction.
I really don't care what label we come up with, i'm just happy when people I disagree with on other issues can agree with me and put partisan bullshit aside and can agree with me on this one issue.
_________________ So we finish the 18th...And I say, 'Hey, Lama, how about a little something ,you know, for the effort.' And he says...when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness.'
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:01 am Posts: 19477 Location: Brooklyn NY
I'm guessing if you ask knowledgable experts about this - either scholars, historians, or members of the intelligence community - they will probably tell you most of these people have little in common in their goals, other than that they are using Islam to justify mass murder.
By labeling all terrorists as "Islamofacists" we're making the same mistake we made in failing to determine the Chinese/Russian split during the Cold War. It wasn't until the early 1970s that we acknowledged the Russians and the Chinese communists hated each other. They had entirely different philosophies on how to implement communism. Just like the Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. And these countries were all neighbors.
It's a shame because we could probably be doing a better job of more effectively turning these people on each other instead of having to confront them head on. No strategy involved from this administration.
_________________
LittleWing sometime in July 2007 wrote:
Unfortunately, it's so elementary, and the big time investors behind the drive in the stock market aren't so stupid. This isn't the false economy of 2000.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:57 pm Posts: 941 Location: Buffalo
glorified_version wrote:
I'm guessing if you ask knowledgable experts about this - either scholars, historians, or members of the intelligence community - they will probably tell you most of these people have little in common in their goals, other than that they are using Islam to justify mass murder.
By labeling all terrorists as "Islamofacists" we're making the same mistake we made in failing to determine the Chinese/Russian split during the Cold War. It wasn't until the early 1970s that we acknowledged the Russians and the Chinese communists hated each other. They had entirely different philosophies on how to implement communism. Just like the Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. And these countries were all neighbors.
It's a shame because we could probably be doing a better job of more effectively turning these people on each other instead of having to confront them head on. No strategy involved from this administration.
To be honest, there is a systemic strategy put forth by this administration. Don't confuse political SCIENCE with history, philosophy and other subjects where people sit around and discuss what Marx had for lunch.
_________________ So we finish the 18th...And I say, 'Hey, Lama, how about a little something ,you know, for the effort.' And he says...when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness.'
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:01 am Posts: 19477 Location: Brooklyn NY
Purple Hawk wrote:
glorified_version wrote:
I'm guessing if you ask knowledgable experts about this - either scholars, historians, or members of the intelligence community - they will probably tell you most of these people have little in common in their goals, other than that they are using Islam to justify mass murder.
By labeling all terrorists as "Islamofacists" we're making the same mistake we made in failing to determine the Chinese/Russian split during the Cold War. It wasn't until the early 1970s that we acknowledged the Russians and the Chinese communists hated each other. They had entirely different philosophies on how to implement communism. Just like the Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. And these countries were all neighbors.
It's a shame because we could probably be doing a better job of more effectively turning these people on each other instead of having to confront them head on. No strategy involved from this administration.
To be honest, there is a systemic strategy put forth by this administration. Don't confuse political SCIENCE with history, philosophy and other subjects where people sit around and discuss what Marx had for lunch.
You need to elaborate, I have no idea what on earth you are talking about.
You do get an A+ on stereotyping the liberal crowd tonight. Nice work, dumbass.
_________________
LittleWing sometime in July 2007 wrote:
Unfortunately, it's so elementary, and the big time investors behind the drive in the stock market aren't so stupid. This isn't the false economy of 2000.
I'm guessing if you ask knowledgable experts about this - either scholars, historians, or members of the intelligence community - they will probably tell you most of these people have little in common in their goals, other than that they are using Islam to justify mass murder.
By labeling all terrorists as "Islamofacists" we're making the same mistake we made in failing to determine the Chinese/Russian split during the Cold War. It wasn't until the early 1970s that we acknowledged the Russians and the Chinese communists hated each other. They had entirely different philosophies on how to implement communism. Just like the Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. And these countries were all neighbors.
It's a shame because we could probably be doing a better job of more effectively turning these people on each other instead of having to confront them head on. No strategy involved from this administration.
To be honest, there is a systemic strategy put forth by this administration. Don't confuse political SCIENCE with history, philosophy and other subjects where people sit around and discuss what Marx had for lunch.
You need to elaborate, I have no idea what on earth you are talking about.
You do get an A+ on stereotyping the liberal crowd tonight. Nice work, dumbass.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:01 am Posts: 19477 Location: Brooklyn NY
Peeps wrote:
glorified_version wrote:
Purple Hawk wrote:
glorified_version wrote:
I'm guessing if you ask knowledgable experts about this - either scholars, historians, or members of the intelligence community - they will probably tell you most of these people have little in common in their goals, other than that they are using Islam to justify mass murder.
By labeling all terrorists as "Islamofacists" we're making the same mistake we made in failing to determine the Chinese/Russian split during the Cold War. It wasn't until the early 1970s that we acknowledged the Russians and the Chinese communists hated each other. They had entirely different philosophies on how to implement communism. Just like the Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. And these countries were all neighbors.
It's a shame because we could probably be doing a better job of more effectively turning these people on each other instead of having to confront them head on. No strategy involved from this administration.
To be honest, there is a systemic strategy put forth by this administration. Don't confuse political SCIENCE with history, philosophy and other subjects where people sit around and discuss what Marx had for lunch.
You need to elaborate, I have no idea what on earth you are talking about.
You do get an A+ on stereotyping the liberal crowd tonight. Nice work, dumbass.
hi pot, kettle, kettle pot
hi pot
_________________
LittleWing sometime in July 2007 wrote:
Unfortunately, it's so elementary, and the big time investors behind the drive in the stock market aren't so stupid. This isn't the false economy of 2000.
I'm guessing if you ask knowledgable experts about this - either scholars, historians, or members of the intelligence community - they will probably tell you most of these people have little in common in their goals, other than that they are using Islam to justify mass murder.
By labeling all terrorists as "Islamofacists" we're making the same mistake we made in failing to determine the Chinese/Russian split during the Cold War. It wasn't until the early 1970s that we acknowledged the Russians and the Chinese communists hated each other. They had entirely different philosophies on how to implement communism. Just like the Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. And these countries were all neighbors.
It's a shame because we could probably be doing a better job of more effectively turning these people on each other instead of having to confront them head on. No strategy involved from this administration.
To be honest, there is a systemic strategy put forth by this administration. Don't confuse political SCIENCE with history, philosophy and other subjects where people sit around and discuss what Marx had for lunch.
You need to elaborate, I have no idea what on earth you are talking about.
You do get an A+ on stereotyping the liberal crowd tonight. Nice work, dumbass.
hi pot, kettle, kettle pot
hi pot
considering how much you stereotype religion, if i were you, id shut my fucking pie hole over who is a dumbass or not
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:01 am Posts: 19477 Location: Brooklyn NY
Peeps wrote:
glorified_version wrote:
Peeps wrote:
glorified_version wrote:
Purple Hawk wrote:
glorified_version wrote:
I'm guessing if you ask knowledgable experts about this - either scholars, historians, or members of the intelligence community - they will probably tell you most of these people have little in common in their goals, other than that they are using Islam to justify mass murder.
By labeling all terrorists as "Islamofacists" we're making the same mistake we made in failing to determine the Chinese/Russian split during the Cold War. It wasn't until the early 1970s that we acknowledged the Russians and the Chinese communists hated each other. They had entirely different philosophies on how to implement communism. Just like the Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. And these countries were all neighbors.
It's a shame because we could probably be doing a better job of more effectively turning these people on each other instead of having to confront them head on. No strategy involved from this administration.
To be honest, there is a systemic strategy put forth by this administration. Don't confuse political SCIENCE with history, philosophy and other subjects where people sit around and discuss what Marx had for lunch.
You need to elaborate, I have no idea what on earth you are talking about.
You do get an A+ on stereotyping the liberal crowd tonight. Nice work, dumbass.
hi pot, kettle, kettle pot
hi pot
considering how much you stereotype religion, if i were you, id shut my fucking pie hole over who is a dumbass or not
Feel free to chime in and derail threads anytime.
_________________
LittleWing sometime in July 2007 wrote:
Unfortunately, it's so elementary, and the big time investors behind the drive in the stock market aren't so stupid. This isn't the false economy of 2000.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:57 pm Posts: 941 Location: Buffalo
glorified_version wrote:
Purple Hawk wrote:
glorified_version wrote:
I'm guessing if you ask knowledgable experts about this - either scholars, historians, or members of the intelligence community - they will probably tell you most of these people have little in common in their goals, other than that they are using Islam to justify mass murder.
By labeling all terrorists as "Islamofacists" we're making the same mistake we made in failing to determine the Chinese/Russian split during the Cold War. It wasn't until the early 1970s that we acknowledged the Russians and the Chinese communists hated each other. They had entirely different philosophies on how to implement communism. Just like the Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. And these countries were all neighbors.
It's a shame because we could probably be doing a better job of more effectively turning these people on each other instead of having to confront them head on. No strategy involved from this administration.
To be honest, there is a systemic strategy put forth by this administration. Don't confuse political SCIENCE with history, philosophy and other subjects where people sit around and discuss what Marx had for lunch.
You need to elaborate, I have no idea what on earth you are talking about.
You do get an A+ on stereotyping the liberal crowd tonight. Nice work, dumbass.
Easy there, Moonbeam,
No need to degrade into personal attacks. What I'm saying is that Bush's policies are deeply rooted in well developed theories of political science, as opposed to people, who hate shoes for some reason, who live in an alternative universe.
_________________ So we finish the 18th...And I say, 'Hey, Lama, how about a little something ,you know, for the effort.' And he says...when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness.'
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:01 am Posts: 19477 Location: Brooklyn NY
Purple Hawk wrote:
glorified_version wrote:
Purple Hawk wrote:
glorified_version wrote:
I'm guessing if you ask knowledgable experts about this - either scholars, historians, or members of the intelligence community - they will probably tell you most of these people have little in common in their goals, other than that they are using Islam to justify mass murder.
By labeling all terrorists as "Islamofacists" we're making the same mistake we made in failing to determine the Chinese/Russian split during the Cold War. It wasn't until the early 1970s that we acknowledged the Russians and the Chinese communists hated each other. They had entirely different philosophies on how to implement communism. Just like the Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. And these countries were all neighbors.
It's a shame because we could probably be doing a better job of more effectively turning these people on each other instead of having to confront them head on. No strategy involved from this administration.
To be honest, there is a systemic strategy put forth by this administration. Don't confuse political SCIENCE with history, philosophy and other subjects where people sit around and discuss what Marx had for lunch.
You need to elaborate, I have no idea what on earth you are talking about.
You do get an A+ on stereotyping the liberal crowd tonight. Nice work, dumbass.
Easy there, Moonbeam, No need to degrade into personal attacks. What I'm saying is that Bush's policies are deeply rooted in well developed theories of political science, as opposed to people, who hate shoes for some reason, who live in an alternative universe.
Okay, fine smartass. What if I had left off the phrase, "no strategy involved from this administration." You don't need to tell me neoconservativism is a political theory, we all know this already.
_________________
LittleWing sometime in July 2007 wrote:
Unfortunately, it's so elementary, and the big time investors behind the drive in the stock market aren't so stupid. This isn't the false economy of 2000.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:38 pm Posts: 2461 Location: Austin
How about "extremism"?
_________________
GrimmaceXX wrote:
PATS 38 GIANTS 10 - However I do see a chance the Pats letting it all hang out and scoring 56 or 63 points. Just realize that you will NEVER see a team like this again in your lifetime.... that is until next year...... 38-0
I guess I just think the definition of fascism is pretty applicable to the way things are run throughout parts of the middle east. Keep in mind now, I am not just speaking about terrorist organizations. I'm speaking about government bodies as well. Look at what exists. Look at what people are trying to achieve. How much different was what happened in Iran to what happened in Italy before the war? Look at what's going on in Somalia now. They are foisting an Islamic state upon the people. One that will absolutely positively repress numerous freedoms of the people.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
