PDA

View Full Version : Hezbollah Democrats



Pages : [1] 2

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-09-2006, 11:24 AM
Does anyone else think it's interesting, the radical leftist Democrats who have taken over the Democratic party, and who have actively done everything to aid the enemy, and continue to defend and excuse the terrorists, have now kicked the Jew out of their party? I guess it's hard to have a pro-Hezbo position with Jews all up in your party?

maineman
08-09-2006, 11:37 AM
I know of no one on here or anywhere in the democratic party that is pro-Hezbollah. I am fully supportive of Israel's attacks against Hezbollah... my only concern is that they need to be more discrinimating in target selection. Blowing up the apartment buildings and infrastructure of Christian east Beirut does their cause no good.

LadyT
08-09-2006, 11:41 AM
my only concern is that they need to be more discrinimating in target selection.

That's an understatement. I however am not fully supportive of these latest strikes. I think Israel has done herself a great injustice and all they are doing is perpetuating the problem and gaining more support against them. I'm all for surgically removing Hezbollah, but the latest incursions on the innocent Lebanese civilians is intolerable imo.

OrnotBitwise
08-09-2006, 11:58 AM
That's an understatement. I however am not fully supportive of these latest strikes. I think Israel has done herself a great injustice and all they are doing is perpetuating the problem and gaining more support against them. I'm all for surgically removing Hezbollah, but the latest incursions on the innocent Lebanese civilians is intolerable imo.
Although I'm not a Democrat I think my views on this are in line with a lot of the left wing of that party. To wit:

1) Israel does have a legitimate right to act to stop the missile barrage coming from within Lebanon.

2) Israel does have the right to cross the border into Lebanon under arms, provided that the Lebanese government really can't -- or won't -- stop said rocket attacks.

3) Israel does NOT, however, have the right to inflict unlimited carnage among Lebanese civilians in order to protect their own civilians.

4) Bearing points (1), (2) and (3) in mind, Israel has overstepped what is conscionable.

In the practical sense, I wish that they'd waited longer before attacking. The thrust across the border hasn't caused any let up in the rocket attacks. Indeed, they've intensified. Therefore it's ridiculous to suggest that Israel couldn't have waited. They could have petitioned the Lebanese government. Very publicly and forcefully. They could have requested an emergency session of the Security Council. Instead, they went in to "take care of it" themselves.

I further wish that they'd concentrate on ground offensives rather than missile attacks and bombs. Troops on the ground can be more discriminating than any remotely fired weapon.

Immanuel
08-09-2006, 12:27 PM
I agree with Maine, LadyT and Ornot but what is Israel to do when those S.O.B.s shoot and hide from behind the skirts of women and from the playgrounds of children?

Personally, I support Israel. I simply wish there was another way to stop the Hezbollah bastards (and I am not claiming that all Muslims are murderers) without killing innocent civilians regardless of whether they are Christian, Jew or Muslim.

Immie

LadyT
08-09-2006, 12:28 PM
I further wish that they'd concentrate on ground offensives rather than missile attacks and bombs. Troops on the ground can be more discriminating than any remotely fired weapon.

Agreed. Its going to take years to rebuild the country again and those who lost loved ones are going to probably harbor a lifetime of resentment toward the Israelis.

LadyT
08-09-2006, 12:31 PM
I agree with Maine, LadyT and Ornot but what is Israel to do when those S.O.B.s shoot and hide from behind the skirts of women and from the playgrounds of children?

Immie

The number one priority should be minimizing hte deaths and injuries of innocent civilians. I don't care how they do it, as long as these raids of death and destruction on innocent civilians cease.

Cypress
08-09-2006, 12:35 PM
I agree with Maine, LadyT and Ornot but what is Israel to do when those S.O.B.s shoot and hide from behind the skirts of women and from the playgrounds of children?

Personally, I support Israel. I simply wish there was another way to stop the Hezbollah bastards (and I am not claiming that all Muslims are murderers) without killing innocent civilians regardless of whether they are Christian, Jew or Muslim.

Immie


Israel absolutley has a right to defend itself, but they're tactics were all wrong. Hezbollah was not widely popular throughout lebanon, but now they are. Israel should not have bombed the countries infrastructure, including the christian areas, the international airport, the highways and bridges. That will just make hezbollah stronger in the long run, by punishing lebanese that had nothing to do with the rocket attacks.

Israel should have gone is with ground forces and special ops to confront Hezbollah directly. the massive airstrikes on infrastructure was a bad idea.

Immanuel
08-09-2006, 12:36 PM
The number one priority should be minimizing hte deaths and injuries of innocent civilians. I don't care how they do it, as long as these raids of death and destruction on innocent civilians cease.

Isn't that what I said?


Personally, I support Israel. I simply wish there was another way to stop the Hezbollah bastards (and I am not claiming that all Muslims are murderers) without killing innocent civilians regardless of whether they are Christian, Jew or Muslim.

Immie

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-09-2006, 12:37 PM
The number one priority should be minimizing hte deaths and injuries of innocent civilians. I don't care how they do it, as long as these raids of death and destruction on innocent civilians cease.

I think the number one priority should be to get the left-wing agenda-driven media out of the way, so they will stop falsley reporting this stuff. Terrorists are not idiots, they fully understand how to manipulate the media and make it look like the Israeli's are killing innocent civilians.

Immanuel
08-09-2006, 12:37 PM
Israel absolutley has a right to defend itself, but they're tactics were all wrong. Hezbollah was not widely popular throughout lebanon, but now they are. Israel should not have bombed the countries infrastructure, including the christian areas, the international airport, the highways and bridges. That will just make hezbollah stronger in the long run, by punishing lebanese that had nothing to do with the rocket attacks.

Israel should have gone is with ground forces and special ops to confront Hezbollah directly. the massive airstrikes on infrastructure was a bad idea.

100% agree.

Immie

klaatu
08-09-2006, 12:39 PM
I agree with Maine, LadyT and Ornot but what is Israel to do when those S.O.B.s shoot and hide from behind the skirts of women and from the playgrounds of children?

Personally, I support Israel. I simply wish there was another way to stop the Hezbollah bastards (and I am not claiming that all Muslims are murderers) without killing innocent civilians regardless of whether they are Christian, Jew or Muslim.

Immie


Well .. the advice from Lady T sounds about right ... hire a few surgeons and put them on the battle front ....

Immanuel
08-09-2006, 12:40 PM
I think the number one priority should be to get the left-wing agenda-driven media out of the way, so they will stop falsley reporting this stuff. Terrorists are not idiots, they fully understand how to manipulate the media and make it look like the Israeli's are killing innocent civilians.

So are you saying that you think the press should only report the "Rose Colored Glasses" view of this war?

Immie

klaatu
08-09-2006, 12:45 PM
So are you saying that you think the press should only report the "Rose Colored Glasses" view of this war?

Immie

When has that ever happened? :eek:

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-09-2006, 12:52 PM
So are you saying that you think the press should only report the "Rose Colored Glasses" view of this war?

Immie


No, I am saying, the press, and the rest of you, should be intelligent enough to realize Hesbollah is going to manipulate the media to their distinct advantage. Apparently, you're not!

Immanuel
08-09-2006, 12:57 PM
No, I am saying, the press, and the rest of you, should be intelligent enough to realize Hesbollah is going to manipulate the media to their distinct advantage. Apparently, you're not!

Sounds to me like you would like to manipulate the media as well.

It doesn't surprise me that Hezbollah would do this. Propaganda has been a tactic of war since war was invented. So, why are you so damned surprised? Perhaps you are ignorant of that fact?

Immie

OrnotBitwise
08-09-2006, 01:09 PM
Sounds to me like you would like to manipulate the media as well.

It doesn't surprise me that Hezbollah would do this. Propaganda has been a tactic of war since war was invented. So, why are you so damned surprised? Perhaps you are ignorant of that fact?

Immie
And the Israelis do it too. Quite well, in fact. As does our own government, thought they're not so good at it.

Immanuel
08-09-2006, 01:19 PM
And the Israelis do it too. Quite well, in fact. As does our own government, though they're not so good at it.

It sort of ebbs and flows. I mean our governmental leaders change realitively quickly. Today's American leaders may not be good at it but what about in three years?

Immie

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-09-2006, 01:27 PM
Sounds to me like you would like to manipulate the media as well.

It doesn't surprise me that Hezbollah would do this. Propaganda has been a tactic of war since war was invented. So, why are you so damned surprised? Perhaps you are ignorant of that fact?

Immie

Oh, I realize propaganda is a tactic of war, I am not surprized by that, I am fairly alarmed at how pinheads like you will believe the propaganda to be true, and even go so far as to defend it as being legitimate.

Pinhead: The Israeli's are killing innocent people...
Dixie: That is propaganda they hope you will believe....
Pinhead: So what? Propaganda is a legitimate tactic of war!

Can you not recognize the absurd idiocy?

Immanuel
08-09-2006, 01:33 PM
Oh, I realize propaganda is a tactic of war, I am not surprized by that, I am fairly alarmed at how pinheads like you will believe the propaganda to be true, and even go so far as to defend it as being legitimate.

Pinhead: The Israeli's are killing innocent people...
Dixie: That is propaganda they hope you will believe....
Pinhead: So what? Propaganda is a legitimate tactic of war!

Can you not recognize the absurd idiocy?

So Pinheaded Dixie doesn't believe that innocent people are dying. How many angels will fit on the top of your head Dixie?

Immie

Immanuel
08-09-2006, 01:34 PM
See Dixie other people can act like babies just like you. Name-calling, Dixie's favorite sport.

Immie

uscitizen
08-09-2006, 01:35 PM
Oh, I realize propaganda is a tactic of war, I am not surprized by that, I am fairly alarmed at how pinheads like you will believe the propaganda to be true, and even go so far as to defend it as being legitimate.

Pinhead: The Israeli's are killing innocent people...
Dixie: That is propaganda they hope you will believe....
Pinhead: So what? Propaganda is a legitimate tactic of war!

Can you not recognize the absurd idiocy?
Yeah like the pinheads that believed all that WMD propaganda :)

OrnotBitwise
08-09-2006, 01:52 PM
It sort of ebbs and flows. I mean our governmental leaders change realitively quickly. Today's American leaders may not be good at it but what about in three years?

Immie
Good point. One of the advantages of our government is that it does change relatively quickly . . . at least in some ways.

BTW -- am I wrong or is Dix arguing that Israel is not killing innocents in Lebanon? I guess he figures that all those corpses are of Hezbollah fighters. Boy, they do start 'em young over there, don't they?

Immanuel
08-09-2006, 01:54 PM
BTW -- am I wrong or is Dix arguing that Israel is not killing innocents in Lebanon? I guess he figures that all those corpses are of Hezbollah fighters. Boy, they do start 'em young over there, don't they?

That is exactly what he seems to be arguing. Maybe those bodies are just dolls?

Immie

uscitizen
08-09-2006, 02:04 PM
Whazzup with the watermelon label ornot ?

OrnotBitwise
08-09-2006, 02:30 PM
Whazzup with the watermelon label ornot ?
Oh, just saving our esteemed brethren of the con persuasion some effort. You know: Green on the outside, red on the inside.

:cof1:

Immanuel
08-09-2006, 02:46 PM
Oh, just saving our esteemed brethren of the con persuasion some effort. You know: Green on the outside, red on the inside.

:cof1:


Does that mean you are an immature Commie?

Green = immature

Red = Commie

Yes, I'd say that is what you are telling me. :pke:

Immie

OrnotBitwise
08-09-2006, 03:33 PM
Does that mean you are an immature Commie?

Green = immature

Red = Commie

Yes, I'd say that is what you are telling me. :pke:

Immie
Ah, no. That would be red on the outside and green on the inside. Like an under-ripe plum perhaps.

No, it means that I'm a deceitful stealth commie! :ninj:

FUCK THE POLICE
08-09-2006, 03:48 PM
Does anyone else think it's interesting, the radical leftist Democrats who have taken over the Democratic party, and who have actively done everything to aid the enemy, and continue to defend and excuse the terrorists, have now kicked the Jew out of their party? I guess it's hard to have a pro-Hezbo position with Jews all up in your party?


You know, this reminds me of a certain quote by a certain fascist who controlled the Air Force of the third reiche...

AnyOldIron
08-10-2006, 06:31 AM
No, I am saying, the press, and the rest of you, should be intelligent enough to realize Hesbollah is going to manipulate the media to their distinct advantage. Apparently, you're not!

Is that the best defense of Israeli terrorism you have? Any report of Israeli atrocities is merely Hizbollah propoganda? Even if they are from independent, Western, media?

You dumb fuck.

US news is so overwhelmingly pro-Israel, it is a fucking miracle that it even mentions Israeli terrorism.

If Hizbollah were claiming that every terrorist act it commits was 'an accident', that they were targeting IDF troops in Haifa, you might have a point.

As it is, you are simply an apologist for Israeli terror.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-10-2006, 06:42 AM
No, I am saying, the press, and the rest of you, should be intelligent enough to realize Hesbollah is going to manipulate the media to their distinct advantage. Apparently, you're not!

Is that the best defense of Israeli terrorism you have? Any report of Israeli atrocities is merely Hizbollah propoganda? Even if they are from independent, Western, media?

You dumb fuck.

US news is so overwhelmingly pro-Israel, it is a fucking miracle that it even mentions Israeli terrorism.

If Hizbollah were claiming that every terrorist act it commits was 'an accident', that they were targeting IDF troops in Haifa, you might have a point.

As it is, you are simply an apologist for Israeli terror.

I hope the authorities are paying attention to what you are posting, it's becoming rather disturbing to hear you defend the terrorists like this. Israel doesn't commit terror acts, they don't send their children into markets and onto buses to blow themselves up, they don't fly commercial airliners into buildings, they don't saw people's heads off in front of a video camera! You are the "apologist" here, not me, I am merely pointing out the facts. I have given you opportunity after opportunity to explain how Israel has committed terrorist acts, and you simply can't. You keep trying to make some correlation between military actions and terrorism, as if you haven't the slightest clue of the difference. Maybe you are as air-headed as Cyndi Sheehan, or maybe you presume I am, I don't know, but it's disturbing to read someone who is so adamant about defending terrorist acts.

AnyOldIron
08-10-2006, 07:10 AM
I hope the authorities are paying attention to what you are posting, it's becoming rather disturbing to hear you defend the terrorists like this.

Stop your bullshit Dixie. I am not defending terrorism, that seems to be your role. I condemn terrorism on BOTH sides.

Let's see if your tiny little brain can explain how I am defending terrorism...

Israel doesn't commit terror acts, they don't send their children into markets and onto buses to blow themselves up, they don't fly commercial airliners into buildings, they don't saw people's heads off in front of a video camera!

This is why I call you a dumb fuck. You seem to be under the impression that terrorism is restricted to the acts you describe.

Terrorism is targeting civilians with the intent of bringing about political change through terror.

Targeting civilians with warplanes, rockets and artillery is STILL TERRORISM. Wearing a uniform DOESN'T excuse terrorism.

You are the "apologist" here, not me, I am merely pointing out the facts.

No, I have condemned terrorism on both sides. I have never defended Hizbollah terrorism in the manner you do with Israeli. Explain how I am an apologist.


I have given you opportunity after opportunity to explain how Israel has committed terrorist acts, and you simply can't. You keep trying to make some correlation between military actions and terrorism, as if you haven't the slightest clue of the difference.

I have explained ad nausium. Targeting civilians, which you relish, isn't a military action, it is terrorism.

It is you who has no clue what terrorism is. You are under the impression that it is merely suicide bombings.

Terrorism is the targeting of civilians with the aim of bringing political change through terror. Wearing a uniform, or using western gear DOESN'T excuse it, or negate it from being terrorism.

Maybe you are as air-headed as Cyndi Sheehan, or maybe you presume I am, I don't know, but it's disturbing to read someone who is so adamant about defending terrorist acts.

You are typing words but you don't seem to know what you are saying.

WHERE HAVE I DEFENDED TERRORISM? WHERE HAVE I DEFENDED HIZBOLLAH? I POINT TO THE TERRORISM USED ON BOTH SIDES AND CONDEMN IT.

YOU, ON THE OTHER HAND, ARE A CHEERLEADER FOR ISRAELI ATTACKS ON CIVILIANS.

YOU ARE A TERRORISM FAN.

AnyOldIron
08-10-2006, 07:13 AM
By the way, your racism is showing.

You assume that Lieberman lost because he is Jewish, rather than his actions and position on Iraq.

AnyOldIron
08-10-2006, 07:25 AM
Terrorism is the intentional use of violence or the threat of violence against one or more members of a general population to generate fear, cause disruption, and ultimately to cause the authorities of a population to comply with certain political, religious, ideological, or personal demands

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-10-2006, 07:34 AM
WHERE HAVE I DEFENDED TERRORISM? WHERE HAVE I DEFENDED HIZBOLLAH? I POINT TO THE TERRORISM USED ON BOTH SIDES AND CONDEMN IT.

There is only one side committing terrorist acts. You seek to marginalize their actions by claiming the Israeli's are terrorists too. You've settled on a rather simplistic and vague description of terrorism, and now use that to build your argument. You can use your description of terror and make virtually any country a terrorist organization, so what you are essentially saying is, we are all terrorists. I don't accept that, and I think most rational people don't accept that. But you have demonstrated, just the sort of minds we are having to deal with, just the sort of idiocy we face in educating people about terrorism.

Jarod
08-10-2006, 07:48 AM
If you disagree with Dixie you are defending Terrorists..

Poor General Abazaid... By Dixie's rules he is a Terrorist simpathizer!

AnyOldIron
08-10-2006, 07:54 AM
There is only one side committing terrorist acts. You seek to marginalize their actions by claiming the Israeli's are terrorists too. You've settled on a rather simplistic and vague description of terrorism, and now use that to build your argument. You can use your description of terror and make virtually any country a terrorist organization, so what you are essentially saying is, we are all terrorists. I don't accept that, and I think most rational people don't accept that. But you have demonstrated, just the sort of minds we are having to deal with, just the sort of idiocy we face in educating people about terrorism.

Given that you seem to have absolutely no idea what constitutes terrorism, claiming that you need to educate people is like a retard trying to teach a class on astro-physics.

Both are targeting civilians with the intent of bringing about political change through terror. Both sides are using the same tactics.

Your claim that that definition (the fucking accepted definition) makes all nations terrorists is wrong.

When the IRA were bombing and rocketing in NI, the British Army didn't start targeting civilians in Dublin.

They didn't use warplanes to bomb civilian funerals in Donegal. We didn't ethnically cleanse South Armagh.

States don't target civilians with the aim of bringing about political change through terror. If they do, then they are terrorist.

Your defense of Israel targeting civilians in this manner makes you a terrorist sympathiser, akin to people like Abu Hamza.


Let's see you attempt to articulate whatever you think terrorism is????

maineman
08-10-2006, 07:57 AM
I think, from Dixie's overly-simplistic perspective, terrorism only involves suicide and Islam.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-10-2006, 07:58 AM
If you disagree with Dixie you are defending Terrorists..

Poor General Abazaid... By Dixie's rules he is a Terrorist simpathizer!


I don't have a problem with anyone disagreeing with me, it's when people attempt to defend terrorism, or worse, accuse me of being a terrorist sympathizer, that I get a little worked up. Why is it, when Liberals get smacked around like the wimps they are, they always start sounding like someone's little sister?

AnyOldIron
08-10-2006, 08:03 AM
I don't have a problem with anyone disagreeing with me, it's when people attempt to defend terrorism, or worse, accuse me of being a terrorist sympathizer, that I get a little worked up. Why is it, when Liberals get smacked around like the wimps they are, they always start sounding like someone's little sister?

Roflmao! Dixie, you couldn't smack yourself around.

I have condemned terrorism on both sides. You are an apologist for Israeli terrorism. That's why you are a terrorist sympathiser.

Anyway pea-brain, let's see you articulate your definition of terrorism......

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-10-2006, 08:04 AM
Both are targeting civilians with the intent of bringing about political change through terror. Both sides are using the same tactics.

No, they simply are not. I've asked you for the examples, and you've been unable to give them. When was the last Israeli car bomb... suicide bomber... beheading... When did Israeli's fly planes into buildings, send Anthrax throught the mail, or set an IED? When did Israel kidnap people and hold them hostage, making political demands? When did Israel even hijack a plane? You want to make Israel seem as bad as the terrorists, but about all you can do is intellectualize definitions to fit your absurdity.

AnyOldIron
08-10-2006, 08:04 AM
I think, from Dixie's overly-simplistic perspective, terrorism only involves suicide and Islam.

By Dixie's perspective, the IRA weren't a terrorist organisation.

They didn't use suicide bombing...

AnyOldIron
08-10-2006, 08:10 AM
No, they simply are not. I've asked you for the examples, and you've been unable to give them. When was the last Israeli car bomb... suicide bomber... beheading... When did Israeli's fly planes into buildings, send Anthrax throught the mail, or set an IED? When did Israel kidnap people and hold them hostage, making political demands? When did Israel even hijack a plane? You want to make Israel seem as bad as the terrorists, but about all you can do is intellectualize definitions to fit your absurdity.

Dixie, you slow individual.

Car bombing, suicides, plane hijackings and IED are not the only forms of terrorism.

Terrorism is the targeting of civilians with the intent of bringing about political change through terror.

Bombing a civilian funeral from the air is as much terrorism as using a car bomb. It doesn't matter if you wear a uniform or use western military gear.

Using missiles to attack civilians is as much terrorism as suicide bombers.

And btw, Israelis used many of the tactics you described when it was campaigning for the formation of Israel.

Google the King David Hotel bombings....

I'm still waiting for you to try to define what you think terrorism is....

Jarod
08-10-2006, 08:19 AM
Terrorists use fear to gain political objectives....

The Bush administration uses fear to gain political objectives....

"If you elect John Kerry I am afraid we will see another 9-11 style attack on U.S. Soil" - Dick Cheney.

AnyOldIron
08-10-2006, 08:21 AM
Terrorists use fear to gain political objectives....

Terrorists target civilians with the use or threat of force to gain political objectives.

Jarod
08-10-2006, 08:38 AM
Terrorists use fear to gain political objectives....

Terrorists target civilians with the use or threat of force to gain political objectives.



Its the fear caused by the attacks that the terrorists use...

The Bush Administration is just once removed from it, but they are capitolizing on the same fear for political advantage!

maineman
08-10-2006, 09:07 AM
Both are targeting civilians with the intent of bringing about political change through terror. Both sides are using the same tactics.

No, they simply are not. I've asked you for the examples, and you've been unable to give them. When was the last Israeli car bomb... suicide bomber... beheading... When did Israeli's fly planes into buildings, send Anthrax throught the mail, or set an IED? When did Israel kidnap people and hold them hostage, making political demands? When did Israel even hijack a plane? You want to make Israel seem as bad as the terrorists, but about all you can do is intellectualize definitions to fit your absurdity.

bombing a Christian civilian neighborhood in east Beirut is an example. Bombing a civilian funeral is an example. destroying entire civilian neighborhoods in south Beirut because Hezbollah has offices in the neighborhood is an example. That is using violence against members of the general population to generate fear and cause disruption. If America had turned all of Afghanistan into a sheet of radioactive glass because Osama was hiding on top of one hill in one area of the country, and, in so doing, se slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian lives, that would be terrorism. I have no problem with Israel striking Hezbollah, but their targeting is too indiscriminant.

OrnotBitwise
08-10-2006, 09:12 AM
No, they simply are not. I've asked you for the examples, and you've been unable to give them. When was the last Israeli car bomb... suicide bomber... beheading... When did Israeli's fly planes into buildings, send Anthrax throught the mail, or set an IED? When did Israel kidnap people and hold them hostage, making political demands? When did Israel even hijack a plane? You want to make Israel seem as bad as the terrorists, but about all you can do is intellectualize definitions to fit your absurdity.

Dixie, you slow individual.

Car bombing, suicides, plane hijackings and IED are not the only forms of terrorism.

Terrorism is the targeting of civilians with the intent of bringing about political change through terror.

Bombing a civilian funeral from the air is as much terrorism as using a car bomb. It doesn't matter if you wear a uniform or use western military gear.

Using missiles to attack civilians is as much terrorism as suicide bombers.

And btw, Israelis used many of the tactics you described when it was campaigning for the formation of Israel.

Google the King David Hotel bombings....

I'm still waiting for you to try to define what you think terrorism is....
I think it also needs to be noted that terrorism is not the only illicit use of force or threat of force.

Some believe that "terrorism" should be reserved for acts that specifically target civilians and are explicitly intended to cause fear in a civilian population. By that definition, guerilla attacks against military personnel are not terrorist acts as such. By that definition, simple disdain for civilian deaths does not make one a terrorist. I suppose that constraining the definition so straightly is valid. It does mean, though, that many illicit uses of force that are not "terrorism" per se are equally heinous.

AnyOldIron
08-10-2006, 09:30 AM
By that definition, simple disdain for civilian deaths does not make one a terrorist.

It is the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure that count.

For example a very clearly marked ambulance...

AnyOldIron
08-10-2006, 09:32 AM
Of course the argument could be made that all attacks were 'accidents', but then would we believe Hizbollah if it repeatedly claimed to have 'accidents' that are really targeting military?

Could Hizbollah get away with stating that they are targeting IDF members based in Haifa with its rocket attacks there? That it was merely an accident that civilians died or for them to blame the IDF for being amongst civilians?

Would we bollocks....

OrnotBitwise
08-10-2006, 10:16 AM
By that definition, simple disdain for civilian deaths does not make one a terrorist.

It is the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure that count.

For example a very clearly marked ambulance...
For me, it doesn't count for much. If we want to discriminate between terrorist attacks, on the one hand, and other immoral misues of military might, on the other, fine. I don't see much point in it but I'll get with the program.

As you point out yourself, almost no one ever admits to targetting civilians. It's not enough to take their word for it; we have to apply a certain amount of analytical filtering.

I think it's impossible to conclude that all Israeli soldiers are avoiding civilian targets. Most are, perhaps, but some are not.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-10-2006, 11:25 AM
Bravo, Bravo! Excellent apologist defense of terrorism here! You two are amazing in your support and defending of radical Islamic terror, it is so concisely clear to all who read your words, that there isn't anything I could possibly say to illustrate it better. It also demonstrates why Liberals and Democrats in general, don't have the slightest clue of what we are up against, or how to defeat it. You don't even know the difference between legitimate military actions and acts of terror on innocent civilians.

Let's be clear, "TERRORISM" is a word, it has a specific meaning and usage in the English language. In the context of our discussion, the word is used to describe terrorist tactics such as beheadings, suicide bombings, car bombs, kidnapping, hijacking, flying planes into buildings, improvising explosive devices, sending Anthrax through the mail, etc. This sort of barbaric 5th century, uncivilized practice of radical Islamics, to effect a political change, is called "TERRORISM." Now, maybe you have a better word to describe it, maybe "TERRORISM" is too broad and vague to use, because it could be construed (in your pinhead) to include legitimate governments using legitimate military actions as well? I don't know! If you feel better creating a new word to describe what I articulated above, I will be pleased to use that word instead, but as it stands, the only word I can attribute to the acts noted above, is "TERRORISM."

Israel is NOT guilty of this kind of TERRORISM!
The UK is NOT guilty of this kind of TERRORISM!
The US is NOT guilty of this kind of TERRORISM!

Islamic Fascists ARE guilty of this kind of TERRORISM!

OrnotBitwise
08-10-2006, 11:33 AM
Israel is NOT guilty of this kind of TERRORISM!
The UK is NOT guilty of this kind of TERRORISM!
The US is NOT guilty of this kind of TERRORISM!

Islamic Fascists ARE guilty of this kind of TERRORISM!
Fine. Have it your own way. But Israel IS guilty of other crimes just as bad. We will not call them "terrorism." You can calm down, take a deep breath and wipe off your face now. I'd suggest a bib next time, though.

Israel and the United States are guilty of killing too damned many innocent civilians in their attempts to kill terrorists. Lets call it "murder" instead of "terrorism" just to keep Dixie from throwing another tantrum.

LadyT
08-10-2006, 11:40 AM
terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
2 : violent and intimidating gang activity <street terrorism> —ter·ror·ist /-ist/ adj or noun —ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective

The common themes are acts of violence against civilians to bring about political changes.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-10-2006, 11:56 AM
Fine. Have it your own way.

It's not a matter of having it my own way, it's how it is.


But Israel IS guilty of other crimes just as bad.

I disagree. The horror and trauma caused by the terrorist tactics I described above, are evil beyond comparison to anything the civilized world has ever done. Sure, Israel is not without sin, neither is the US or any other country for that matter, but we are not in a fundamental holy war over those things now, the focus is on radical Islamic Fascism. Hezbollah is a part of that, along with alQaeda, Islamic Jihad, Al Axa, Hamas, Abu Nidal, and with the state sponsorship of Iran and Syria, who are supported by a host of other countries.

It's time for you "thinking" people of the world to understand, we can't afford to listen to your rhetoric and pontification anymore. We are on the brink of WWIII against a dangerous and evil enemy, and there is no choice except to face it. We can no longer bury our heads in the sand and pretend it will all be okay, we just need to better understand, throw a little more money at it, reach out... whatever! It doesn't work here! These people have vowed to kill us all, and they will not rest until they've accomplished that. You better start standing up for the people who are fighting them, instead of trying to stand in their way! When they are making your mother a video of your beheading, is not the time for you to become concerned about this, the time to understand it and deal with it is now.

maineman
08-10-2006, 12:04 PM
the Lebanese civilians who die in their apartment buildings bombed by ordinance dropped from Israeli aircraft died in just as much horror and trauma as those Israelis who were sitting in a pizza parlor when a suicide bomber blew himself up in their midst. The lebanese civilian who is killed by tons of concrete crushing him is no less dead and died no less a horrific death than the western journalist beheaded by Zarqawi.

To claim that one creates horror and trauma and the other does not is simply ridiculous.

OrnotBitwise
08-10-2006, 12:11 PM
Fine. Have it your own way.

It's not a matter of having it my own way, it's how it is.


But Israel IS guilty of other crimes just as bad.

I disagree. The horror and trauma caused by the terrorist tactics I described above, are evil beyond comparison to anything the civilized world has ever done. Sure, Israel is not without sin, neither is the US or any other country for that matter, but we are not in a fundamental holy war over those things now, the focus is on radical Islamic Fascism. Hezbollah is a part of that, along with alQaeda, Islamic Jihad, Al Axa, Hamas, Abu Nidal, and with the state sponsorship of Iran and Syria, who are supported by a host of other countries.

It's time for you "thinking" people of the world to understand, we can't afford to listen to your rhetoric and pontification anymore. We are on the brink of WWIII against a dangerous and evil enemy, and there is no choice except to face it. We can no longer bury our heads in the sand and pretend it will all be okay, we just need to better understand, throw a little more money at it, reach out... whatever! It doesn't work here! These people have vowed to kill us all, and they will not rest until they've accomplished that. You better start standing up for the people who are fighting them, instead of trying to stand in their way! When they are making your mother a video of your beheading, is not the time for you to become concerned about this, the time to understand it and deal with it is now.
According to you, killing 50 innocent civilians is worse than killing 500 innocenct civilians if the guys who killed the 50 are what you call terrorists.

That's so stupid I'm not even going to laugh at it. I'm just going to shake my head.
:dunno:

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-10-2006, 12:18 PM
I'm just going to shake my head.

Yes, and be grateful you still have the ability to do that, some people take it for granted.

uscitizen
08-10-2006, 12:47 PM
Dang if I want to hear sensless ranting I will call my ex wife.
Ignore for dixie too, that worked out so nicely for Toby yesterday :)

Jarod
08-10-2006, 12:54 PM
BTW, US, I love your avatar!

OrnotBitwise
08-10-2006, 02:34 PM
BTW, US, I love your avatar!
Me too. Mine's too busy and it has to go. That one's inspired. :thup:

AnyOldIron
08-11-2006, 02:03 AM
In the context of our discussion, the word is used to describe terrorist tactics such as beheadings, suicide bombings, car bombs, kidnapping, hijacking, flying planes into buildings, improvising explosive devices, sending Anthrax through the mail, etc.

No it isn't. You have simply listed a selection of some of the methods used by terrorists. This is not a definition in any way.

Try to articulate a definition, not list a few select methods....

I know this is difficult for your tiny terrorism-fan brain but give it a try....

Hizbollah are currently using rocket attacks to attack Israel. If terrorism is simply the methods you describe, this isn't terrorism.

Now read carefully. Terrorism is the ACT of targeting civilians with the intent of bringing about political change through terrorising the population.

It doesn't matter what methods you use, or what you wear, or your religion, or whether you are employed by a government or what colour your skin is.

If you target civilians with the intent to bring about political change through intimidation, you are a terrorist.

You cannot be excused simply because you are Dixie's pet terrorists...

AnyOldIron
08-11-2006, 02:19 AM
Israel is NOT guilty of this kind of TERRORISM!
The UK is NOT guilty of this kind of TERRORISM!
The US is NOT guilty of this kind of TERRORISM!

If they target civilians with the intent of illiciting political change through intimidation they are...

We judge by actions not by race or nationality...

Islamic Fascists ARE guilty of this kind of TERRORISM!

Fascism is a specific political persuasion Dixie, an extention of nationalism.

AQ etc are Islamic religious fundamentalist extremists. They aren't fascists.

Just adding a word to something because it has bad connotations is invalid.

Much as we might dislike AQ it wouldn't be valid to claim that they are cannabals.

By using terms like this, you sound as retarded as that monkey you are so enamoured with....

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-11-2006, 07:27 AM
Arnold, your rather simplistic definition of "terrorism" would encompass virtually every military of every country on the planet, who has ever fired a shot at an enemy. With the possible exception of France and Sweden, every country is a terrorist group, according to your definition. Indeed, warfare itself seeks to effect a political change through intimidation and fear.

As I stated, and I am not interested in debating, you can attribute a completely new word to what I am talking about, if that makes you feel better. Maybe "terrorism" is not the right word to describe what we are talking about? Maybe we should have a new word to differentiate between your definition of terror, and the radical barbarism practiced by extremist terror groups using the tactics I described? If that makes you feel better about it, that's fine, but when I use the word "terrorism" that is what I am talking about, not your simplistic dictionary definition.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-11-2006, 07:31 AM
AQ etc are Islamic religious fundamentalist extremists. They aren't fascists.

Yes they are. Islamic Fascists! You can deny this and continue to defend them all you want to, by the very dictionary you swear by, they ARE indeed Fascists, and there really isn't any other word for it, but if you need to create a new word for Islamics who are Fascists, you can! In fact, that's why people started using the word "Islamofascist" when describing this particular kind of Fascism.

Damocles
08-11-2006, 07:37 AM
Fascism is a specific political persuasion Dixie, an extention of nationalism.

AQ etc are Islamic religious fundamentalist extremists. They aren't fascists.

Just adding a word to something because it has bad connotations is invalid.

Much as we might dislike AQ it wouldn't be valid to claim that they are cannabals.

By using terms like this, you sound as retarded as that monkey you are so enamoured with....


Nobody has claimed they are cannibals, that is a strawman, AOI. Anyway, it depends on what you consider "nationalism". This is an ideation, like Marxism, being spread by a group that wants a singular government, with a Caliphate (dictator), heading it up to rule the world and are willing to do much to have that happen. Saying that there is no similarity between this and Fascism is pretending that red roses have no similarity to white ones.

Amazingly the "They're not Fascists!" crowd are the same ones who, during our last Presidential election, spent many hours comparing Bush to Hitler and calling our Government Fascists...

Care4all
08-11-2006, 08:02 AM
the Lebanese civilians who die in their apartment buildings bombed by ordinance dropped from Israeli aircraft died in just as much horror and trauma as those Israelis who were sitting in a pizza parlor when a suicide bomber blew himself up in their midst. The lebanese civilian who is killed by tons of concrete crushing him is no less dead and died no less a horrific death than the western journalist beheaded by Zarqawi.

To claim that one creates horror and trauma and the other does not is simply ridiculous.



That is VERY TRUE Maineman!

However, can't you also then say that my husband being manslaughtered or my husband being murdered is just as painful to me, even though the law defined one as manslaughter, a lesser degree of a crime than murder?

Either crime, killed my soul mate, even an involuntary manslaughter could have killed him, and my pain and my loss would still be there forever....

And if my husband was killed by another in a complete accident, my loss and pain, would be no less painful.

Vengence is what may end up guiding my other feelings....and that is clearly what is happening in Lebanon, in Israel, in Iraq, In Iran....all over the place....but it is not the right way to go, the godly route to go....the Christian route to go, which is loving thy enemy, so that you become like burning coals on their head.....

something us measly men, can't seem to follow... :(

care

AnyOldIron
08-12-2006, 01:57 AM
Arnold, your rather simplistic definition of "terrorism" would encompass virtually every military of every country on the planet, who has ever fired a shot at an enemy.

No it isn't. Read it again Simple Simon....

'Terrorism is the ACT of targeting civilians with the intent of bringing about political change through terrorising the population.'

Soldiers don't target civilians braindead. So it doesn't incorporate every military on the planet, it incorporates thos who target civilians.

As I stated, and I am not interested in debating, you can attribute a completely new word to what I am talking about, if that makes you feel better. Maybe "terrorism" is not the right word to describe what we are talking about? Maybe we should have a new word to differentiate between your definition of terror, and the radical barbarism practiced by extremist terror groups using the tactics I described? If that makes you feel better about it, that's fine, but when I use the word "terrorism" that is what I am talking about, not your simplistic dictionary definition.

In other words you aren't capable of articulating a definition.

That's because you are slow, but are under the impression that you are pretty smart. You aren't. Your arguments are made of sand and fall apart at the slightest touch, at which point you either run away, start stating 'I'm not debating you pinheads' or deflect the argument by accusations of anti-semitism.

AnyOldIron
08-12-2006, 02:00 AM
Yes they are. Islamic Fascists! You can deny this and continue to defend them all you want to, by the very dictionary you swear by, they ARE indeed Fascists, and there really isn't any other word for it, but if you need to create a new word for Islamics who are Fascists, you can! In fact, that's why people started using the word "Islamofascist" when describing this particular kind of Fascism.

You haven't got a clue have you? Strange for someone with such an inflated ego....

Fascism is a specific term, it isn't something you just tag onto anything that is bad. It is a nationalist ideology and Islamic extremists aren't nationalists.

The only people I've heard use the term 'islamofascists are moronic US politicians (says it all), George 'I don't know the meaning of words' Bush and you.

AnyOldIron
08-12-2006, 02:38 AM
Nobody has claimed they are cannibals, that is a strawman, AOI.

No it isn't. Read what I said.

Just because something is bad, doesn't mean we can willy-nilly attach any negative label to them.

For example, if you couldn't claim Islamic extremists are cannabals just because cannabals have a bad name and you want that to rub off...

Anyway, it depends on what you consider "nationalism". This is an ideation, like Marxism, being spread by a group that wants a singular government, with a Caliphate (dictator), heading it up to rule the world and are willing to do much to have that happen. Saying that there is no similarity between this and Fascism is pretending that red roses have no similarity to white ones.

Oh Jeez, not you as well! Fascism is a specific term for a particular ideology, created in Italy in the 20's. It refers SPECIFICALLY to an amalgamation of corporatism and nationalism.

Terms have specific definitions to differentiate them from other terms. We cannot just chose any term with negative connotations that we want to attach. Desire for a dictatorship isn't fascism, although fascism usually uses a dictatorship. If it were any monarchy would be deemed fascist.

These people are Islamic extremists. They are neither nationalist not corporatist.

It is just (extremely crude and poor) rhetoric on the behalf of the Monkey-in-Chief (and his acolyte Dixie) to claim these religious fundamentalist extremists are fascists.

Amazingly the "They're not Fascists!" crowd are the same ones who, during our last Presidential election, spent many hours comparing Bush to Hitler and calling our Government Fascists...

Compared Bush to Hitler? Hardly. Hitler, insane as he was, had at least a degree of intelligence.

The current US government is closer to fascism.

Remember fascism is not a 'cover-all' negative term, it refers to something SPECIFIC.

The amalgamation of nationalism and corporatism...

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-12-2006, 08:54 AM
Fascism is a specific term, it isn't something you just tag onto anything that is bad. It is a nationalist ideology and Islamic extremists aren't nationalists.

I disagree. It often includes a "nationalist" element, but it is not required of Fascism. I would also argue that the beliefs of radical Islam, and the degree of fanaticism behind those beliefs, constitutes a form of nationalism. There is more to Fascism than the criteria of being "bad" as you put it. This is an intellectually dishonest thing to assert, because the associations between Islamic radicals and Fascism have been well articulated here, and not once has anyone said a thing about "bad" meaning "fascist" in their points.

Cypress
08-12-2006, 09:58 AM
Stop inventing your own definitions. OBL and al qaeda are theocrats, whose ideology is pan-nationalist in scope; seeking to unite all arabs and/or muslims under a theocratic rule will is based soley on the tenets of God/Allah or sharia law.

Hilter, Mussolini, and Pinochet were fascists. Not theocrats.

-Facism, noun: "dictatorial movement: any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism"

-Theocracy, noun: 1. government by god: government by a god or by priests

maineman
08-12-2006, 11:55 AM
dixie just uses islamofascist because hannity and rush do. you really don't expect anything approaching critical original thought from this asshole, do you?

OrnotBitwise
08-13-2006, 12:11 AM
Why is it that it's okay to talk about "Islamofascists" and "Islamic fascists" when it's not okay to suggest that a member of our government might exhibit fascistic tendencies?

Supposedly, it's bad for me to call a spade a spade -- and Bush a fascistic little social climber with no morals. It's bad because using the word "fascist" is emotionally manipulative.

The same people who adhere to the above, however, also seem to believe that one can impugn all Muslims everywhere without offense.

AnyOldIron
08-14-2006, 02:44 AM
I disagree. It often includes a "nationalist" element, but it is not required of Fascism.

It is FUNDAMENTAL to what fascism is....

"Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.

The original fascist (fascismo) movement ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. In time, the generic term fascism came to cover a class of authoritarian political ideologies, parties, and political systems, most notably Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler but also Hungary's Arrow Cross Party, Romania's Iron Guard, Spain's Falange and the French political movements led by former socialists Marcel Déat and Jacques Doriot and others."

Fascism was created as a nationalist ideology. To state that it doesn't require to be nationalistic is a basic misunderstanding of what fascism is.

I would also argue that the beliefs of radical Islam, and the degree of fanaticism behind those beliefs, constitutes a form of nationalism.

No they don't. Nationalism is the belief in power the nation state. Radical Islam are theocratic in nature, not nationalist.

Again you are just trying to fit a word with negative connotations (fascism) into something it isn't, just to make a weak rhetorical point.

It is things like this that drive me to brand you far slower than you give yourself credit for....

There is more to Fascism than the criteria of being "bad" as you put it. This is an intellectually dishonest thing to assert, because the associations between Islamic radicals and Fascism have been well articulated here, and not once has anyone said a thing about "bad" meaning "fascist" in their points.

Dixie, terms have definitions. Using the definitions properly isn't a big thing to ask for.

You haven't articulated anything, you rarely do, as with your non-existent defintion of terrorism. To claim that I am being intellectually dishonest by requesting that you use proper definitions and not poorly thought-through rhetoric is a case of the pot accusing the kettle...

AnyOldIron
08-14-2006, 02:46 AM
dixie just uses islamofascist because hannity and rush do.

And because the Bush Monkey does....

Damocles
08-14-2006, 06:14 AM
If you notice it isn't called solely "fascist" it is a conglomeration word that recognizes that it has part of the features of fascism and others of strict theocracy. If it were believed that it was totally fascist and not at least partially theocracy then they would call it "fascism" not "islamofascism"...

It is also plugging your ears and shouting "lalalalala" if you really can't see the strong central nationalist threads in the Caliphate beliefs...

Also, Hitler took his secular beliefs and centralized them around religious ceremonies, these guys take religious beliefs and centralize them around what we believe to be secular...

To say that there is no similarities at all is simply blinders placed because the word came from opposing ideation, not because it has been intellectually "proven" to be inaccurate.

AnyOldIron
08-14-2006, 06:21 AM
If you notice it isn't called solely "fascist" it is a conglomeration word that recognizes that it has part of the features of fascism and others of strict theocracy. If it were believed that it was totally fascist and not at least partially theocracy then they would call it "fascism" not "islamofascism"...

No, this is just misuse of the term designed for rhetorical purposes. These people aren't fascist, they are religious extremists. Fascism isn't a 'cover-all' term for anything that we don't like.

It is also plugging your ears and shouting "lalalalala" if you really can't see the strong central nationalist threads in the Caliphate beliefs...

The Caliphate isn't nationalistic, it is theocratic. It doesn't hold the nation state as paramount, it hold theocratic beliefs. In fact the Caliphate is multi-national, it holds no consideration for the nation state.

Also, Hitler to his secular beliefs and centralized them around religious ceremonies, these guys take religious beliefs and centralize them around what we believe to be secular...

??? This anaology doesn't fit. Firstly Hitler was Catholic, secondly, Hitler's fascism was based on nationalist beliefs of superiority of the German state. Religion has nothing to do with it.

To say that there is no similarities at all is simply blinders placed because the word came from opposing ideation, not because it has been intellectually "proven" to be inaccurate.

The only similarity is that both fascists and religious extremists are deemed bad people.

Fascism ISN'T a word to be used for anyone we don't like. That is just rhetoric. Fascism is a specific term with a specific definition.

Damocles
08-14-2006, 06:25 AM
If you notice it isn't called solely "fascist" it is a conglomeration word that recognizes that it has part of the features of fascism and others of strict theocracy. If it were believed that it was totally fascist and not at least partially theocracy then they would call it "fascism" not "islamofascism"...

No, this is just misuse of the term designed for rhetorical purposes. These people aren't fascist, they are religious extremists. Fascism isn't a 'cover-all' term for anything that we don't like.


No, it isn't. This from the fricking group that tried to make Bush a "fascist" during the last election. Hitler comparisons were flying...



It is also plugging your ears and shouting "lalalalala" if you really can't see the strong central nationalist threads in the Caliphate beliefs...

The Caliphate isn't nationalistic, it is theocratic. It doesn't hold the nation state as paramount, it hold theocratic beliefs. In fact the Caliphate is multi-national, it holds no consideration for the nation state.


Hence the reason I said "similarity" and not "equality"... If you cannot see the similarity in the central government dictatorship then you really are just plugging your ears...




Also, Hitler to his secular beliefs and centralized them around religious ceremonies, these guys take religious beliefs and centralize them around what we believe to be secular...

??? This anaology doesn't fit. Firstly Hitler was Catholic, secondly, Hitler's fascism was based on nationalist beliefs of superiority of the German state. Religion has nothing to do with it.


Foolishness, this points out that you haven't read much about the symbolism and ceremonies of the SS and the religio-political centralism of Hitler's Nazi party...



To say that there is no similarities at all is simply blinders placed because the word came from opposing ideation, not because it has been intellectually "proven" to be inaccurate.

The only similarity is that both fascists and religious extremists are deemed bad people.

Fascism ISN'T a word to be used for anyone we don't like. That is just rhetoric. Fascism is a specific term with a specific definition.
This is bullox. Similarities abound, far more here than the comparison to "Hitler" and "Bush" that your side had to spout all during the last election. This is so totally political blinder territory it becomes laughable!

maineman
08-14-2006, 06:28 AM
at issue is not so much the use or misuse of the word "fascist", but the inaccurate lumping of all arab and muslim movements under that umbrella.

To claim that Hezbollah is just the same as Al Qaeda is really as stupid and inaccurate as saying that "all niggers look alike". If we do not understand the motivations of our enemies, we will never be able to defeat them. We will NEVER be able to militarily defeat islamic extremism if we seek to eradicate them militarily - unless we are willing to eradicate every muslim on the planet.

Terrorism is a low tech, asymetrical form of warfare. Look at the billions of dollars spent on baggage screening devices in airports.... all incapable - it seems - of detecting liquid explosives... so shall we spend another pile of billions to upgrade those machines only to find that the terrorists develop yet another low tech counterpunch that makes the new machines obsolete?

Are we going to be able to stop someone entering the empire state building with liquid explosives strapped to their body? How do we "militarily" defeat such an enemy?

I think we would be smart to consider actually addressing the socio-economic inequities that breed islamic extremism .... my guess is it would be cheaper in the long run and more effective as well.

Damocles
08-14-2006, 06:36 AM
I think we would be smart to consider actually addressing the socio-economic inequities that breed islamic extremism .... my guess is it would be cheaper in the long run and more effective as well.


I'd agree with this, if all the ones caught in the UK were also from the bottom of the socio-economic ladder....

There is far more to this than socio-economic inequities. It goes deeper than money.

AnyOldIron
08-14-2006, 06:46 AM
No, it isn't. This from the fricking group that tried to make Bush a "fascist" during the last election. Hitler comparisons were flying...

Fascism isn't a cover-all insult. Calling Bush a fascist is stating that the person believes Bush supports the amalgamation of state and commerce for the furthering of the nation state.

You might disagree that this is something that Bush is doing but it fits far better than describing theocrats who have no concept of the nation state...

Hence the reason I said "similarity" and not "equality"... If you cannot see the similarity in the central government dictatorship then you really are just plugging your ears...

Fascism isn't a central government dictatorship. A CGD is merely a dictatorship...

Are you claiming that Soviet Communism is fascist???

Foolishness, this points out that you haven't read much about the symbolism and ceremonies of the SS and the religio-political centralism of Hitler's Nazi party...

They weren't religious symbols or ceremonies, they were symbols and ceremonies in exhaltation of the state.

Trust me, I've read extensively about Nazi Germany.

This is bullox. Similarities abound, far more here than the comparison to "Hitler" and "Bush" that your side had to spout all during the last election. This is so totally political blinder territory it becomes laughable!

Explain how... I've indepthly explained why the two aren't related.

Just saying 'Oh, no it isn't' doesn't constitute an argument....

maineman
08-14-2006, 06:52 AM
I'd agree with this, if all the ones caught in the UK were also from the bottom of the socio-economic ladder....

There is far more to this than socio-economic inequities. It goes deeper than money.

if it were only about "money", it would be economic and not SOCIO-economic.

The Russian revolution was started on behalf of peasants by empathetic students and intellectuals.

Damocles
08-14-2006, 06:54 AM
No, it isn't. This from the fricking group that tried to make Bush a "fascist" during the last election. Hitler comparisons were flying...

Fascism isn't a cover-all insult. Calling Bush a fascist is stating that the person believes Bush supports the amalgamation of state and commerce for the furthering of the nation state.

You might disagree that this is something that Bush is doing but it fits far better than describing theocrats who have no concept of the nation state...


And calling it Islamofascism is stating that they believe that this group is working toward a Religious state that supports teh amalgamation fo state and commerce for furthering their religious state. To say that there is similarity in one but ignoring the similarity in the other is religious blinders for convenience of argument, not logic.



Hence the reason I said "similarity" and not "equality"... If you cannot see the similarity in the central government dictatorship then you really are just plugging your ears...

Fascism isn't a central government dictatorship. A CGD is merely a dictatorship...

Are you claiming that Soviet Communism is fascist???


No, I am stating that in every case Fascism has presented itself in a dictatorship and this is very similar when considering the Caliphate. This is a desperate attempt to erect a strawman, I have not stated that every dictatorship is fascism... only you have so you could attempt to defeat a ridiculous statement. Good thing nobody but you made it.



Foolishness, this points out that you haven't read much about the symbolism and ceremonies of the SS and the religio-political centralism of Hitler's Nazi party...

They weren't religious symbols or ceremonies, they were symbols and ceremonies in exhaltation of the state.

Trust me, I've read extensively about Nazi Germany.


Based entirely in religious ceremony. That they centralized it on the state does not change that was what they were built from. Stating otherwise is admitting ignorance.



This is bullox. Similarities abound, far more here than the comparison to "Hitler" and "Bush" that your side had to spout all during the last election. This is so totally political blinder territory it becomes laughable!

Explain how... I've indepthly explained why the two aren't related.

Just saying 'Oh, no it isn't' doesn't constitute an argument....


I've explained why the two are similar and hence the reason that the word is used other than "Fascism is bad"...

Ignoring the similarities in one while exaggerating them in the other is the very definition of putting on political blinders...

AnyOldIron
08-14-2006, 07:44 AM
And calling it Islamofascism is stating that they believe that this group is working toward a Religious state that supports teh amalgamation fo state and commerce for furthering their religious state. To say that there is similarity in one but ignoring the similarity in the other is religious blinders for convenience of argument, not logic.

Working towards a religious state, and thus dictatorship, isn't fascism. They are theocrats, people who want a state ran only religious principles. They have no inclination towards a nation state, nor commercial intentions. Islamic societies are traditionally trade-led. They have no inclination to alter this. There SOLE goal is an empire based on religious terms.

They do not fit the description fascist.

No, I am stating that in every case Fascism has presented itself in a dictatorship and this is very similar when considering the Caliphate.

This is poor logic. Because fascist states are ran by dictators doesn't mean all dictatorships are fascist.

This is a desperate attempt to erect a strawman, I have not stated that every dictatorship is fascism... only you have so you could attempt to defeat a ridiculous statement. Good thing nobody but you made it.

Ahem... From this post....

"No, I am stating that in every case Fascism has presented itself in a dictatorship and this is very similar when considering the Caliphate."

Based entirely in religious ceremony. That they centralized it on the state does not change that was what they were built from. Stating otherwise is admitting ignorance.

"Based on religious ceremony" Are all ceremonies 'based on religious ceremony'?

Is this the best link you can find to claim that Islamic extremists are fascist, that the Nazis held ceremonies that could (if you squint) resemble religious ceremonies?

I've explained why the two are similar and hence the reason that the word is used other than "Fascism is bad"...

The similarities (simply that they are both dictatorships) doesn't justify using the term fascist.

Fascism has as much in common with Communism as it does Islamic theocracy.

Using the term Islamofascism is entirely rhetorical, designed to add a negative overtone. That negative overtone might be justified, Islamic theocrats might be ugly people, but there is no excuse for such lazy rhetoric.

Damocles
08-14-2006, 08:00 AM
And calling it Islamofascism is stating that they believe that this group is working toward a Religious state that supports teh amalgamation fo state and commerce for furthering their religious state. To say that there is similarity in one but ignoring the similarity in the other is religious blinders for convenience of argument, not logic.

Working towards a religious state, and thus dictatorship, isn't fascism. They are theocrats, people who want a state ran only religious principles. They have no inclination towards a nation state, nor commercial intentions. Islamic societies are traditionally trade-led. They have no inclination to alter this. There SOLE goal is an empire based on religious terms.

They do not fit the description fascist.


Which is, once again, the reason that they are not calling it simply "fascism" they have coined a new phrase that is more descriptive of the fact that it has some similarities but is different than... This can't be that difficult for your to comprehend. New phraseology happens on a regular basis and often is such a conglomeration. Attempting to say that they are not exactly the same so no similarity exists is the political blinders that I have spoken of.



No, I am stating that in every case Fascism has presented itself in a dictatorship and this is very similar when considering the Caliphate.

This is poor logic. Because fascist states are ran by dictators doesn't mean all dictatorships are fascist.


Which is exactly what I stated is not what I was saying this is a second attempt to erect the same strawman that has already been shown to be wearing clown clothes.... Quit with this strawman. Nobody has stated that all dictatorships are fascist, EXCEPT YOU.



This is a desperate attempt to erect a strawman, I have not stated that every dictatorship is fascism... only you have so you could attempt to defeat a ridiculous statement. Good thing nobody but you made it.

Ahem... From this post....

"No, I am stating that in every case Fascism has presented itself in a dictatorship and this is very similar when considering the Caliphate."


That does NOT say that all dictatorships are fascist. It states that fascism has, in the past, presented as dictatoriships... In fact, if you continued actually reading that post it specifically stated that not all dictatorships are fascist, that is your own strawman that you built to fight rather than use actual logic.




Based entirely in religious ceremony. That they centralized it on the state does not change that was what they were built from. Stating otherwise is admitting ignorance.

"Based on religious ceremony" Are all ceremonies 'based on religious ceremony'?

Is this the best link you can find to claim that Islamic extremists are fascist, that the Nazis held ceremonies that could (if you squint) resemble religious ceremonies?


They didn't "resemble" they were created entirely from religious ceremonies. This is inanity. You say you have read extensively but missed this part? That is rubbish. There are several hundred books on how Hitler used religious centralism to help propagandise the nation...

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ww2era.htm

Here is just one of them, speaking of how it started with the youth.



I've explained why the two are similar and hence the reason that the word is used other than "Fascism is bad"...

The similarities (simply that they are both dictatorships) doesn't justify using the term fascist.

Fascism has as much in common with Communism as it does Islamic theocracy.

Using the term Islamofascism is entirely rhetorical, designed to add a negative overtone. That negative overtone might be justified, Islamic theocrats might be ugly people, but their is no excuse for such lazy rhetoric.
Using the term Islamofascism is not entirely rhetorical, it is designed to portray exactly what it does portray, the similarities in fascism to centralized theocracy, specifically in the way preached by Islamic Fundamentalists. To say that no logical similarities exist is simple prententious political inanity based entirely on the fact that the idea was presented by an opposing ideology. It isn't based in logic, it is based entirely on a mistaken and illogical belief that nothing the opposing side may say can be salient to life and must be dismissed regardless of logic.

uscitizen
08-14-2006, 08:38 AM
I think the number one priority should be to get the left-wing agenda-driven media out of the way, so they will stop falsley reporting this stuff. Terrorists are not idiots, they fully understand how to manipulate the media and make it look like the Israeli's are killing innocent civilians.

So you don't believe that any innocent civies have been lkilled in Lebanon by the Israelli military ?

AnyOldIron
08-14-2006, 08:42 AM
Which is, once again, the reason that they are not calling it simply "fascism" they have coined a new phrase that is more descriptive of the fact that it has some similarities but is different than... This can't be that difficult for your to comprehend. New phraseology happens on a regular basis and often is such a conglomeration. Attempting to say that they are not exactly the same so no similarity exists is the political blinders that I have spoken of.

This is my point, it doesn't describe what they are. They have so little in common with fascists that you may as well describe them as Islamo-communists.

They are Islamic theocrats.

It is nothing more than lazy rhetoric.

Using the term Islamofascism is not entirely rhetorical, it is designed to portray exactly what it does portray, the similarities in fascism to centralized theocracy, specifically in the way preached by Islamic Fundamentalists. To say that no logical similarities exist is simple prententious political inanity based entirely on the fact that the idea was presented by an opposing ideology. It isn't based in logic, it is based entirely on a mistaken and illogical belief that nothing the opposing side may say can be salient to life and must be dismissed regardless of logic.

The similarities to Fascism are limited to their dictatorial nature. That is all.

There are no other similarities. But that also fits monarchies, communism and a plethera of other ideologies.

It isn't an accurate description to describe them as Islamofascists when the only common factor they have is dictatorial control.

It is nothing but lazy rhetoric.

Cypress
08-14-2006, 08:51 AM
If you notice it isn't called solely "fascist" it is a conglomeration word that recognizes that it has part of the features of fascism and others of strict theocracy. If it were believed that it was totally fascist and not at least partially theocracy then they would call it "fascism" not "islamofascism"...

It is also plugging your ears and shouting "lalalalala" if you really can't see the strong central nationalist threads in the Caliphate beliefs...

Also, Hitler took his secular beliefs and centralized them around religious ceremonies, these guys take religious beliefs and centralize them around what we believe to be secular...

To say that there is no similarities at all is simply blinders placed because the word came from opposing ideation, not because it has been intellectually "proven" to be inaccurate.


It is also plugging your ears and shouting "lalalalala" if you really can't see the strong central nationalist threads in the Caliphate beliefs...


OBL and al qaeda are the exact opposite of a nationalist movement.

They are entirely pan-nationalist in scope and motivation. They seek to promote islamic theocracies, and will support bosnian muslims, Iraqi muslims, Uzebki muslims, and indonesian muslims equally, on behalf of that goal.

Damocles
08-14-2006, 09:04 AM
It is also plugging your ears and shouting "lalalalala" if you really can't see the strong central nationalist threads in the Caliphate beliefs...


OBL and al qaeda are the exact opposite of a nationalist movement.

They are entirely pan-nationalist in scope and motivation. They seek to promote islamic theocracies, and will support bosnian muslims, Iraqi muslims, Uzebki muslims, and indonesian muslims equally, on behalf of that goal.
Rubbish. They seek to centralize all of it under one Caliphate. To ignore this doesn't change that they seek to keep it all under one government. That there are no borders yet to that government doesn't mean that it isn't a nationalist movement based under a one-government theme...

Damocles
08-14-2006, 09:08 AM
The similarities to Fascism are limited to their dictatorial nature. That is all.

There are no other similarities. But that also fits monarchies, communism and a plethera of other ideologies.

It isn't an accurate description to describe them as Islamofascists when the only common factor they have is dictatorial control.

It is nothing but lazy rhetoric.

I pointed out several times where it is untrue that the similarities end there, have pointed out several different similarities that you have not refuted.

There are other similarities that use of that word is used to point out... I have shown how there are similarities between the two, you have not been able to dismiss my argument so you ignore it. That's all good, but it doesn't make you right.

The use of the word isn't "lazy rhetoric" it is a new phraseology that you simply don't like and want so desperately to dismiss that no matter what logic is presented you will use strawman after strawman to dismiss it... No matter how much you attempt to dress up your strawmen they have no resemblence to the points that I have made and do not work to dismiss those points.

maineman
08-14-2006, 09:10 AM
Islamofascists...it's a new word.... fine...why not call them ....let's see....

why not call them ASTRONAUTS??

Cypress
08-14-2006, 09:12 AM
Damo, you're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. You didn't dispute the notion that al qaeda is entirely pan-nationalist (not nationalist), and that their over-arching goal is to promote theocracy. These are indisputable facts. Your not even conforming to the formal definition of "fascism"; you're simply making it up on the fly, and trying to jam a sqaure peg into a round whole.

From what I can see, your simply classifying any totalitarian or authoritarian regime as "fascist". This is simplistic, and ignores the formal defintion and nuances in words.

On the other hand, I can see and sympathize why Sean Hannity would try to link the battle against al qaeda, to the glory days of FDR and Trumans battle against german and italian fascism. Nothing speaks like success, and many politicians would like to be linked to FDR and Truman ;)

Damocles
08-14-2006, 09:12 AM
Islamofascists...it's a new word.... fine...why not call them ....let's see....

why not call them ASTRONAUTS??
Because there are no actual similarities, unlike the ones that have been pointed out between this particular group and fascists. Another silly strawman, made out of the cheapest and weakest straw possible, this one isn't even dressed up!

AnyOldIron
08-14-2006, 09:13 AM
Rubbish. They seek to centralize all of it under one Caliphate. To ignore this doesn't change that they seek to keep it all under one government. That there are no borders yet to that government doesn't mean that it isn't a nationalist movement based under a one-government theme...

It isn't a nationalist organisation, the central theme isn't the promotion of the nation state, but an expansion of a theocracy under a dictatorship.

A nationalist organisation is centred around the concept of a nation state. Being a centralised dictatorship doesn't counteract this.

The Caliphate is a theocratic dictatorship. It isn't a fascist organisation nor does it have nationalist intentions.

Describing the supporters of the Caliphate as fascists is simply poor rhetoric.

maineman
08-14-2006, 09:16 AM
Because there are no actual similarities, unlike the ones that have been pointed out between this particular group and fascists. Another silly strawman, made out of the cheapest and weakest straw possible, this one isn't even dressed up!

if we had some ham, we could have some ham and eggs...if we had some eggs.

Calling Osama a fascist is ridiculous.... I don't care how many "similarities" you create out of whole cloth

Damocles
08-14-2006, 09:16 AM
Damo, you're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. You didn't dispute the notion that al qaeda is entirely pan-nationalist (not nationalist), and that their over-arching goal is to promote theocracy. These are indisputable facts. Your not even conforming to the formal definition of "fascism"; you're simply making it up on the fly, and trying to jam a sqaure peg into a round whole.


No, I don't. You dismiss the whole centralization and how it can be seen as SIMILAR (similar does not mean exactly the same, hence my usage of that word rather than "same as") to Nationalism.



From what I can see, your simply classifying any totalitarian or authoritarian regime as "fascist". This is simplistic, and ignores the formal defintion and nuances in words.


No, only one that is based on the superiority of a central idea (like nationalism) that can be seen as similar to a nationalist ideation. In this case I am separating them from the regular members of the religion, showing how their centralized government and belief in their superiority as well as the propaganda terminology can be seen as similar to the same nationalist propaganda seen in fascist ideologies.

Attempting to dismiss the similarities because the idea was brought forward by somebody like Rush is partisan blinders, not logical determination. This is a desperate fictional account of how they can never be seen as "similar" because they are Muslims... It's rubbish.



On the other hand, I can see and sympathize why Sean Hannity would try to link the battle against al qaeda, to the glory days of FRD and Trumans battle against german and italian fascims. Nothing speaks like success, and many politicians would like to be linked to FDR and Truman ;)

Hannity is simply repeating an idea from somebody far more successful. However that doesn't change that the idea can, and seems to, be based in actual logic rather than just "lazy rhetoric"....

It is lazy to dismiss an idea just because of where it originated.

Damocles
08-14-2006, 09:19 AM
if we had some ham, we could have some ham and eggs...if we had some eggs.

Calling Osama a fascist is ridiculous.... I don't care how many "similarities" you create out of whole cloth
The problem is, they are not out of whole cloth. They are out of what I see and backed by points of logic.

Attempting to dismiss my opinion with nothing more than "I say so!" to back you up is simply disingenuous laziness and is based on nothing logical. It is just what you want to happen because you don't want to consider an idea from another political ideation as having any validity whatsoever. Lazy.

AnyOldIron
08-14-2006, 09:22 AM
The use of the word isn't "lazy rhetoric" it is a new phraseology that you simply don't like and want so desperately to dismiss that no matter what logic is presented you will use strawman after strawman to dismiss it... No matter how much you attempt to dress up your strawmen they have no resemblence to the points that I have made and do not work to dismiss those points.

I don't like the 'phrase' because it is nonsense. I haven't used strawman arguments. You haven't presented ANY logic to support your claim. You have stated that they are fascist because, like Hitler, they want to be a centralised dictatorship.

Being a dictatorship, even a centralised dictatorship DOESN'T make it fascist. Communist states are dictatorships, as are monarchies. We don't describe them as fascist because.... guess what.... they aren't fascist.

Fascism is related to the concept of the nation state. It is the amalgamation of state and commerce for the enhancement of the nation state.

A centralised theocratic dictatorship doesn't make it fascist.

I call it lazy rhetoric because it is lazy rhetoric.

Fascism is a distinctly different concept from that of those who support the Caliphate. Completely different.

Maine is right, for the similarities between them, you might as well call them IslamoAstronaughts.

maineman
08-14-2006, 09:23 AM
all this talk about what to CALL the bad guys is just another 1/3 type smoke screen to distract the discussion away from talking about how poorly we are doing at defeating them.

call them islamofascists if you like...I really don't give a fuck. You won't mind if I fail to start using your "new word", will you?

This whole argument is no more than counting angels on the head of a pin. You all can keep it up, but count me out.

Damocles
08-14-2006, 09:23 AM
It isn't a nationalist organisation, the central theme isn't the promotion of the nation state, but an expansion of a theocracy under a dictatorship.


A theocratic NATION under a central rule selected by their similar to nationalistic stance of superiority of ideation....

SIMILAR TO is not the same as saying that they are the same thing.... This is a strawman again, a better dressed one, but still in clown clothes.




A nationalist organisation is centred around the concept of a nation state. Being a centralised dictatorship doesn't counteract this.


This one is centered around the concept of a creation of a nation state centralized under one rule... (notice the similarities with nationalism?)




The Caliphate is a theocratic dictatorship. It isn't a fascist organisation nor does it have nationalist intentions.


But it has SIMILARITIES... ignoring them because you don't wish people to use a word is simply fallacious argument not based in logical determination but in emotional rhetoric of your own!



Describing the supporters of the Caliphate as fascists is simply poor rhetoric.
But describing them using a new term inculcating the religious centralism of the movement of centralizing the world under one-world government isn't.

Cypress
08-14-2006, 09:27 AM
C'mon damo. We're intelligent people, with superior grammar skills to Geogre Bush, and superior knowledge of the nuance and meanings of words.

If you could pick one ideology that most appropriately describes bin ladin's ideology, would it be:

1) Theocratic dictatorship

or.....

2) Fascists dictatorship.

AnyOldIron
08-14-2006, 09:28 AM
Hannity is simply repeating an idea from somebody far more successful. However that doesn't change that the idea can, and seems to, be based in actual logic rather than just "lazy rhetoric"....

There is no logic in calling them Islamofascists.

It is non-sequiter, it doesn't follow.

Listing similarities doesn't mean they fit into the definition.

A cow eats grass, breaths oxygen and gives milk to its young but that doesn't make it a horse. (that isn't strawman, it is an analogy to your argument)

The fundamental requirements for fascism, amalgamating state and commerce for the purpose of promotion of the nation state AREN'T met by these theocrats.

Why not describe them as they are? They are far better described as Islamic extremist theocrats than islamofascists.

The reason they aren't described as they are is SIMPLY RHETORICAL, creating a mental picture....

Cypress
08-14-2006, 09:31 AM
BTW: "theocracy" is a horrible thing. I don't know why Hannity is afraid to use it. Its IS the more appropriate word to describe al qaeda.

Theocracy, is in fact, what our founders came to america to escape, generally speaking. Calling them (accurately) islamic theocrats is a HUGE insult to them, for any red blooded american.

Damocles
08-14-2006, 09:31 AM
C'mon damo. We're intelligent people, with superior grammar skills to Geogre Bush, and superior knowledge of the nuance and meanings of words.

If you could pick one ideology that most appropriately describes bin ladin's ideology, would it be:

1) Theocratic dictatorship

or.....

2) Fascists dictatorship.

It would be more like a mixture of the two... That he uses a religion to base it, doesn't change the animal he wishes to create and why. It is very similar in nature to nationalism. Hence the whole "fascist" reference in the new terminology....

That you attempt to ignore the similarities because you don't like that the other side uses a word is silly lazy political blindsmanship of a high order. Attempting to say that it is "logic" because you set up the strawmant that "similar" means "the same" isn't logic it is fallacy, is an actual strawman, and doesn't "dismiss" my argument in any way.

It is lazy to attempt to make similar mean equal to or the same.... We know that it doesn't and it is simple dressing to attempt to do so.

Cypress
08-14-2006, 09:37 AM
AOI already pointed out the rhetorical laziness of linking "similarities" in ANY form of dictatorship.

What we're discussing is the accurate and formal word, to describe al qaeda's ideology: theocratic dictatorship.

Damo, had you ever wondered why on earth the "islamic-fascist" word is only used on fox news, and by rightwing pundits, but 99% of the rest of the world describes al qaeda as theocratic islmamic extremists?

IMO: its because Fox News is trying to market the war on al qaeda using "terrifying" words that elicit an emotional response in the context of american history: fascism and communism.

uscitizen
08-14-2006, 09:37 AM
We have to make up new scary names for the other side to make them sound very bad, esp since we are doing so poorly against them. Our poor performance cannot be due to our inept leadership after all now can it.

Damocles
08-14-2006, 09:39 AM
AOI already pointed out the rhetorical laziness of linking "similarities" in ANY form of dictatorship.

What we're discussing is the accurate and formal word, to describe al qaeda's ideology: theocratic dictatorship.

Damo, had you ever wondered why on earth the "islamic-fascist" word is only used on fox news, and by rightwing pundits, but 99% of the rest of the world describes al qaeda as theocratic islmamic extremists?

IMO: its because Fox News is trying to market the war on al qaeda using "terrifying" words that elicit an emotional response in the context of american history: fascism and communism.
And I pointed out how it isn't "laziness" when all one is doing is creating new phraseology. It is simple political blinders to simply dismiss the similarities because the idea comes from a different political source than your own. When creating new phrases in language one often creates a conglomeration of words based on similarities.

It is foolish to maintain that they must be exactly the same. If they were there would be no need for a new word.

Damocles
08-14-2006, 09:40 AM
We have to make up new scary names for the other side to make them sound very bad, esp since we are doing so poorly against them. Our poor performance cannot be due to our inept leadership after all now can it.
Strawman alert!!!! WHOOOP WHOOOP WHOOP! Strawman Alert!!!

When have I ever stated that this group was doing a fine job? This is such total strawman rhetoric.

Cypress
08-14-2006, 09:43 AM
And I pointed out how it isn't "laziness" when all one is doing is creating new phraseology. It is simple political blinders to simply dismiss the similarities because the idea comes from a different political source than your own. When creating new phrases in language one often creates a conglomeration of words based on similarities.

It is foolish to maintain that they must be exactly the same. If they were there would be no need for a new word.


Thank you. Indeed your inventing a "new phraseology" like you say.

From now on, I'm going to use a new phraseology to describe the Chinese government: China is ruled by fascists, not communists: They are highly nationalistic in scope, allow private enterprise (under government control), and are authoritarian in scope ;)

AnyOldIron
08-14-2006, 09:45 AM
theocratic NATION under a central rule selected by their similar to nationalistic stance of superiority of ideation....

That isn't fascism. You are describing a centralised dictatorship.

SIMILAR TO is not the same as saying that they are the same thing.... This is a strawman again, a better dressed one, but still in clown clothes.

It isn't strawman. You are making ambigious claims and then retorting to any reply that they are strawman.

hey aren't similar to fascists. Neither is Islamofascism an accurate description of them. Nowhere near.

It's like saying a cow is similar to a horse because they both eat grass. Would you then call a cow a bovine-horse????

This one is centered around the concept of a creation of a nation state centralized under one rule... (notice the similarities with nationalism?)

It isn't centred on creation the nation state, it is centred on creating a centralised theocracy. The Caliphate isn't dedicated to promoting the notion of Egyptianness or Saudiness, but on the promotion of Islam.

You are describing a theocratic dictatorship, not fascism.

The only similarity that you have identified is the centralised dictatorship, which doesn't justfiy describing them as fascist.


But it has SIMILARITIES... ignoring them because you don't wish people to use a word is simply fallacious argument not based in logical determination but in emotional rhetoric of your own!

There are similarities between a horse and a cow but you don't interchange the names as you like.

The similarites are also similarites shared by other ideologies, monarchies and communism, for example are centralised dictatorships.

The truth is, they are better described as Islamic theocrats, simply because they aren't fascists.

I don't like the term simply because I abhor lazy and cheap rhetoric, which is what this is...

But describing them using a new term inculcating the religious centralism of the movement of centralizing the world under one-world government isn't.

It doesn't describe that. A central dictatorship doesn't make fascism.

Islamic theocracy describes it, Islamic dictatorship describes it.

Islamofascism doesn't. It is, as I have repeated ad nausium, just poor pathos-based rhetoric designed to create an emotional response.

Damocles
08-14-2006, 09:46 AM
Thank you. Indeed your inventing a "new phraseology" like you say.

From now on, I'm going to use a new phraseology to describe the Chinese government: China is ruled by fascists, not communists: They are highly nationalistic in scope, allow private enterprise (under government control), and are authoritarian in scope ;)
Except you don't use a new term. If you used say "Comunofascist" to describe them I'd think it was a new phrase....

Do you see the difference? Or do you want to continue to construct this strawman just to see it fall into the cheap parts it has begun with?

AnyOldIron
08-14-2006, 09:49 AM
And I pointed out how it isn't "laziness" when all one is doing is creating new phraseology.

The term Islamofascists doesn't describe in the slightest these people.

Islamic theocrats or Islamic dictatorship describes what they actually are.

Islamofascism is a rhetorical invention, designed to creat maximum pathos effect, but is nonsensical.

I'll repeat... Fascism isn't just a centralised dictatorship, even one with global asperations. That would deem Stalin as fascist.

AnyOldIron
08-14-2006, 09:52 AM
If you used say "Comunofascist" to describe them I'd think it was a new phrase....

Yeah, lets just attach the word fascism to anything, despite the true meaning of the word....

Despite that Communism and fascism are incompatible, you couldn't have Communo-fascism because they contradict each other.

You are starting to sound as daft as Dixie now....

Cypress
08-14-2006, 09:56 AM
You're welcom to invent a "new phraseology" Damo. ;)


I don't really care. Its totally inaccurate, and way outside the formal definition of the words.

I also find it odd, that this islmo-facisct word was invented in the Fox news room, the RNC, and in Karl Rove's office. Hardly anyone else in the world uses that term, including non-partisan middle east and foreign policy experts around the world.

AnyOldIron
08-14-2006, 09:58 AM
Hardly anyone else in the world uses that term, including non-partisan middle east and foreign policy experts around the world.

The only people I've heard use / support it have been Bush, Dixie and Damo...

uscitizen
08-14-2006, 09:59 AM
Strawman alert!!!! WHOOOP WHOOOP WHOOP! Strawman Alert!!!

When have I ever stated that this group was doing a fine job? This is such total strawman rhetoric.

And how was that a strawman ?
Just an explanation for the new republican term of hatred.

Cypress
08-14-2006, 10:01 AM
Hardly anyone else in the world uses that term, including non-partisan middle east and foreign policy experts around the world.

The only people I've heard use / support it have been Bush, Dixie and Damo...

I'm not sure why the Bushies are afraid to call it was it really is: Theocracy.

"Theocracy" should be a terrifying word to americans. We fled european theocracies to found this nation. Our very first right, enshrined in the Constitutions, is a guarantee AGAINST theocracy. Its the first amendment.

I suspect Fox News and Karl Rove simply like the word "fascism" as a marketing tool. But, is rhetorically lazy and inaccurate

maineman
08-14-2006, 10:02 AM
Hardly anyone else in the world uses that term, including non-partisan middle east and foreign policy experts around the world.

The only people I've heard use / support it have been Bush, Dixie and Damo...


birds of a feather? one would hope not

Damocles
08-14-2006, 10:03 AM
theocratic NATION under a central rule selected by their similar to nationalistic stance of superiority of ideation....

That isn't fascism. You are describing a centralised dictatorship.

SIMILAR TO is not the same as saying that they are the same thing.... This is a strawman again, a better dressed one, but still in clown clothes.

It isn't strawman. You are making ambigious claims and then retorting to any reply that they are strawman.

they aren't similar to fascists. Neither is Islamofascism an accurate description of them. Nowhere near.

It depends on how Islamofascism is defined. In this case it is pointing out the similarities in nationalism while also showing it is different than fascism by pointing out the religious centralism of the movement. Ignoring both points of the new terminology, attempting to say that they are stating that it is equal to only one piece of the new definition and ignoring the rest, is lazy argument based in strawmen. I have pointed it out several times and your only answer is "No it isn't and it isn't a strawman"... There is no logic to back up the statement, just lazy strawmen about how similar means the same thing as "the same as"...



It's like saying a cow is similar to a horse because they both eat grass. Would you then call a cow a bovine-horse????


Bullpucky. It is more like finding a group of people that use the same tactics as pirates but aren't pirates and calling them "semi-piratical"...

This is another strawman, more elaborate and better dressed, but not the same thing.

Your argument is like stating that somebody who just came up with the term "Quadruped" to describe four-footed creatures as a whole can't use the term because the only similarity is four feet...



This one is centered around the concept of a creation of a nation state centralized under one rule... (notice the similarities with nationalism?)

It isn't centred on creation the nation state, it is centred on creating a centralised theocracy. The Caliphate isn't dedicated to promoting the notion of Egyptianness or Saudiness, but on the promotion of Islam.


The Caliphate replaces national governments and thus becomes the nation.... Attempting to say that it isn't similar is rubbish.



You are describing a theocratic dictatorship, not fascism.


I am describing a form of "religious nationalism" not simply "theocratic dicatatorship"... I believe it is more than that.




The only similarity that you have identified is the centralised dictatorship, which doesn't justfiy describing them as fascist.


Bullox. I have given far more similarities than that. I have shown how it could be considered one nation, how it is based on the same propaganda types as nationalism by creating a "superiority" in the minds of the populace, I have shown how fascism began their propaganda with religious undertones and taught it in school with the book that I gave...

All you have is "No, it's not!"... That isn't logic, it is a silly lazy strawman based on emotional rhetoric.



But it has SIMILARITIES... ignoring them because you don't wish people to use a word is simply fallacious argument not based in logical determination but in emotional rhetoric of your own!

There are similarities between a horse and a cow but you don't interchange the names as you like.


Already answered above.. Argument by repitition is also a logical fallacy, as much as strawmen argument. This is also a simplification strawman... It attempts to simplify the argument into idiotic terms that were not stated from the beginning and is more of the same type of lazy argument you have presented from the beginning.... "No it's not!" is not a logical argument.




The similarites are also similarites shared by other ideologies, monarchies and communism, for example are centralised dictatorships.


Right, but in this case the similarities of fascism are being stressed, not of monarchism...




The truth is, they are better described as Islamic theocrats, simply because they aren't fascists.


The truth is that both terms fit them for different reasons. This insistence that only old terminology must be used is a conservative linguistic stance not one based in logic...





I don't like the term simply because I abhor lazy and cheap rhetoric, which is what this is...

But describing them using a new term inculcating the religious centralism of the movement of centralizing the world under one-world government isn't.

It doesn't describe that. A central dictatorship doesn't make fascism.


No, but the "nationalistic" similarities don't end there, that is another strawman.



Islamic theocracy describes it, Islamic dictatorship describes it.


Nationalistic Islamic Dictatorship describes well what they are trying to build.



Islamofascism doesn't. It is, as I have repeated ad nausium, just poor pathos-based rhetoric designed to create an emotional response.

Islamofascism does describe it well as I have explained above using actual examples. Your "argument by repitition" fallacy notwithstanding I have given reasons why I understand the term to fit well, you have simply given me nothing but strawmen and "not it isn't"...

Damocles
08-14-2006, 10:05 AM
birds of a feather? one would hope not
I think you know me better than that. Just because I think a phrase is descriptive doesn't mean I agree ideologically with somebody. This is another strawman argument based on emotion rhetoric and an attempt to control me by the fact that you want to associate me with people you want to dismiss.

Damocles
08-14-2006, 10:06 AM
I'm not sure why the Bushies are afraid to call it was it really is: Theocracy.

"Theocracy" should be a terrifying word to americans. We fled european theocracies to found this nation. Our very first right, enshrined in the Constitutions, is a guarantee AGAINST theocracy. Its the first amendment.

I suspect Fox News and Karl Rove simply like the word "fascism" as a marketing tool. But, is rhetorically lazy and inaccurate
The term inculcates "theocracy"... There is no fear to call it that. Another strawman burns.

Damocles
08-14-2006, 10:07 AM
And how was that a strawman ?
Just an explanation for the new republican term of hatred.
No, you ascribed it to me. That is where it is a strawman. Once again, show where I have ever stated I think this Administration is doing a "great job"...

Care4all
08-14-2006, 10:24 AM
Well I don't care what the "definition" technically means to anyone...

It is DEGRADING to the Islamic Faith and should not be "coined" as a term and used....imo....

Why include a faith in their Degradation of the Enemy? In their constant reaching for a "new term" to define the terrorists or the enemy...

Terrorists
Jihadists
Iraqi Insurgence
Islamic Fundamentalists
IslamoFascists

And what is next? Are we now going to be defined by the muslim world as the Christian Killers or Christian Authoratarians? Or Christian Fascists?

what the hell is this administration thinking bringing in AN ENTIRE RELIGION in his insulting definition, insulting by not even marketing it as Islamic but Islamo...gees louise.... Why don't they just stick to them being TERRORISTS?

I just don't get it...the devisiveness of this administration.... :(

WHAT A BUNCH OF MARKETING CRAP! Don't they KNOW the rule? You pick one focus and term and POUND IT HOME.... ;)

I am noting a sense of marketing failure on Carl Rove's part....he can't seem to find the "right" jingle or term to define his focus....

Damocles
08-14-2006, 10:28 AM
And what is next? Are we now going to be defined by the muslim world as the Christian Killers or Christian Authoratarians? Or Christian Fascists?


We already are... As well as "The Great Satan" and several others.

Care4all
08-14-2006, 10:34 AM
We already are... As well as "The Great Satan" and several others.

Damo????

By a legitimate World Leader?

Come onnnnnnnnnnnnn....


it is irresponsible imo! extremely! And very juvenile, childish and not what I ...as a countryman, would like my leader to act like.... :(

care

Damocles
08-14-2006, 10:36 AM
Damo????

By a legitimate World Leader?

Come onnnnnnnnnnnnn....


it is irresponsible imo! extremely! And very juvenile, childish and not what I ...as a countryman, would like my leader to act like.... :(

care
You don't think the leader of Iran is a legitimate world leader? Come on... Care. Plus, as far as I have read Bush said "fundamentalist" not fascist...

Damocles
08-14-2006, 10:39 AM
Nope.. Found the story. He called it islamofascism.

maineman
08-14-2006, 10:46 AM
I think you know me better than that. Just because I think a phrase is descriptive doesn't mean I agree ideologically with somebody. This is another strawman argument based on emotion rhetoric and an attempt to control me by the fact that you want to associate me with people you want to dismiss.

hence the "one would hope not" ;)

Care4all
08-14-2006, 12:49 PM
Islamo Fascists
Islamo Fascism

What's the difference?

And both terms are being used on fox and by those Repubs in Congress following the idiot in his divisive and ignorant and childish ways.....

Tell me Damo, do you put the president of the United States, President Bush on the same level of WORLD leadership as a Leader of Iran?

just curious....

care

Damocles
08-14-2006, 01:05 PM
Care, I reposted that I was wrong and informed everybody so by stating that I read the article and found that he used fascism. Is it really that hard for you to accept what I stated?

Anyway, I don't think Bush should use the term. I was arguing whether the term could apply in this setting throughout the thread, not whether I think Bush's use is appropriate. I'd like you to find where I stated such in any of my posts....

This "Does Bush equate?" thing... isn't something that I was arguing. However you did ask for one leader of note that states this, I gave you one. To ignore it is really to your detriment. We have enemies, and leaders of note have most definitely equated us to worse than "fascists"...

AnyOldIron
08-15-2006, 03:42 AM
It depends on how Islamofascism is defined.

Break it into its components. Islamic + Fascism.

Islamic - This fits, they are Islamic.

Fascism - This doesn't. They aren't nationalist and the similarities between nationalism and theocracy (ie centralised command) don't justify the use of the term. There are similarities between nationalism and patriotism, but patriotism isn't fascism.

There are similarities between a cat and a cow, but the names aren't interchangable. (This isn't a strawman, this is an analogy to make my point)

Describing these theocrats as nationalist isn't valid. Nationalism is promotion of the nation-state and that isn't the goal of these theocrats. It isn't a nationalist theocratic dictatorship because the concept of the nation state isn't important to these theocrats.

Soviet Russia wanted to unify the world under the Communist International, a centralised dictatorship, but they can't be described as nationalist. (Again, not a strawman, but an analogy)

So nationalist doesn't describe these people well, but then fascism isn't just nationalism. Fascism is the amalgamation of nation state and commerce.

Islam is traditionally a religion of trade and nowhere in the Islamic theocrat's ideology is the amalgamation of any nation state and commerce suggested.

Thus fascist is a poor description of these people. They aren't nationalist, nor seeking to amalgamate nationalism with commercialism. The only similarities between the theocrats and fascism is a preponderance for centralised authoritarian dictatorship and as we has discovered, that is a similarity that they share with many ideologies, it is not a defining quality.

So we have to ask, why would politicos use such a term? The obvious answer is as a rhetorical device, to create pathos. Fascism is a term that, due to the actions of fascists in the C20th has rightly a negative connotation and attaching it has far more impact that using the correct term, Islamic theocrats.

Damocles
08-15-2006, 06:22 AM
AOI,

This ignores all the contextual meaning of new phraseology. This is like a word-geek running around pointing out that "homophobe" is not descriptive of the people in question...

Contextual meaning plays a larger part in modern phraseology of new words than does exact morphing. That you refuse to recognize it because you simply want everything to remain the same is amazingly "conservative" of you linguistically. But it is not impressive. Sitting around and arguing whether the word has the meaning you want it to have is about as worthless as arguing whether red or white roses are best and whether they are really all that closely related. It really doesn't interest many people other than gardeners....

OrnotBitwise
08-15-2006, 10:01 AM
AOI,

This ignores all the contextual meaning of new phraseology. This is like a word-geek running around pointing out that "homophobe" is not descriptive of the people in question...

Contextual meaning plays a larger part in modern phraseology of new words than does exact morphing. That you refuse to recognize it because you simply want everything to remain the same is amazingly "conservative" of you linguistically. But it is not impressive. Sitting around and arguing whether the word has the meaning you want it to have is about as worthless as arguing whether red or white roses are best and whether they are really all that closely related. It really doesn't interest many people other than gardeners....
Generally, I'm a linguistic liberal as well as a political one. In this case, however, the phrase hasn't really made it into the common idiom yet and, if we relentlessly ridicule those who use it, it may never do so.

There's still time to prevent this from becoming an accepted term. Since it is demonstrably misleading, I intend to keep right on slighting those who do use it.

Damocles
08-15-2006, 10:05 AM
Generally, I'm a linguistic liberal as well as a political one. In this case, however, the phrase hasn't really made it into the common idiom yet and, if we relentlessly ridicule those who use it, it may never do so.

There's still time to prevent this from becoming an accepted term. Since it is demonstrably misleading, I intend to keep right on slighting those who do use it.
Nah, we relentlessly ridiculed the "homophobe" inaccuracy and it still made it in. I think this one is already there... It's just too late.

BTW - I was never arguing whether I think Bush should have used the term. Just what the current contextual meaning is, why it is used, and why it is likely to become the accepted term... I think y'all are just too late.

OrnotBitwise
08-15-2006, 10:10 AM
Nah, we relentlessly ridiculed the "homophobe" inaccuracy and it still made it in. I think this one is already there... It's just too late.

BTW - I was never arguing whether I think Bush should have used the term. Just what the current contextual meaning is, why it is used, and why it is likely to become the accepted term... I think y'all are just too late.
We shall see. I haven't given up yet. Most of the rest of the world is not adopting the phrase and I've yet to hear it in day-to-day conversation. Granted, I do live in the bay area, which will definitely impact that last.

Damocles
08-15-2006, 10:12 AM
We shall see. I haven't given up yet. Most of the rest of the world is not adopting the phrase and I've yet to hear it in day-to-day conversation. Granted, I do live in the bay area, which will definitely impact that last.
That's why I think it's too late. It seems rather mainstream in many of the places that I have been. A new term coined specifically for the new enemy...

We have constantly heard "If you can't name it you can't fight it..." Well, however "inaccurate" the statement is, it appears the enemy has been "named"...

OrnotBitwise
08-15-2006, 10:28 AM
That's why I think it's too late. It seems rather mainstream in many of the places that I have been. A new term coined specifically for the new enemy...

We have constantly heard "If you can't name it you can't fight it..." Well, however "inaccurate" the statement is, it appears the enemy has been "named"...
Yes, the enemy are the Christo-fascists.

Cypress
08-15-2006, 10:49 AM
That's why I think it's too late. It seems rather mainstream in many of the places that I have been. A new term coined specifically for the new enemy...

We have constantly heard "If you can't name it you can't fight it..." Well, however "inaccurate" the statement is, it appears the enemy has been "named"...

Very good. Damo, I'm glad to see you've abandoned your efforts to shoehorn theocracy into the formal definition of fascism. And are stating that this weird new amalgam of a word, was invented, or "coined" by the adminstration and Fox News for what appears to be marketing purposes. ;)

Personally, I'm also concered about the hispano-facists in Latin america: like Chavez and Castro ;)

maineman
08-15-2006, 10:57 AM
the problem with the use of this made up word is that it paints with too broad a brush. Hezbollah? why, they're islamofascists. Al Qaeda? islamofascists, obviously. Hamas? islamofascists, of course. It lends itself quite easily to assisting in demonizing all muslims and making them all OUR enemy. It is only a matter of time until it is...Sunnis? Islamofascists. Shi'ites? clearly Islamofascists. Democrats? islamofascists, no doubt.

Damocles
08-15-2006, 11:01 AM
the problem with the use of this made up word is that it paints with too broad a brush. Hezbollah? why, they're islamofascists. Al Qaeda? islamofascists, obviously. Hamas? islamofascists, of course. It lends itself quite easily to assisting in demonizing all muslims and making them all OUR enemy. It is only a matter of time until it is...Sunnis? Islamofascists. Shi'ites? clearly Islamofascists. Democrats? islamofascists, no doubt.
It's much like "phobes" for the left. Don't want illegal immigrants call them "xenophobes" even though it doesn't fit and they aren't afraid of immigrants... Bigoted towards something but not afraid of it, must be a "phobe"... etc... Equally foolish idiotic crap comes from the other side. Or are you a realismphobe?

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-15-2006, 11:02 AM
Very good. Damo, I'm glad to see you've abandoned your efforts to shoehorn theocracy into the formal definition of fascism. And are stating that this weird new amalgam of a word, was invented, or "coined" by the adminstration and Fox News for what appears to be marketing purposes. ;)

Personally, I'm also concered about the hispano-facists in Latin america: like Chavez and Castro ;)

When it all comes down to it, the word "Islamofascist" is borne out of necessity because of pinheads who have a comprehension problem. We start with the "War on Terror" which was quickly rebuked by pinheads claiming, rightly so, that "terror" is a tactic, therefore, you can't wage war on a tactic. Then we attempted to explain "radical Muslim extremism" to you, and were met with the incredulous assertion that we just hate all Muslims and are racists. Next we transgressed into an idiotic debate over what exactly is "terrorism", as if it can be attributed to almost any act of violence against perceived innocent people.

So, in an attempt to get you pinheads to fully understand the weight of the situation and the serious nature of the threat we face, the amalgamation of radical Islamic extremism and theocracy was merged with the iron-fisted nature of tyranny and dictatorship, and the word "Islamofascist" emerged. You have no one but your pinheaded self to blame. Most of us were happy and content with "terrorists" to describe who the enemy is, but since nothing we tried to articulate was resonating, and every argument became a parsing of words and nuanced definitions, a better descriptor was needed.

And I don't understand why you are all of a sudden concerned with Chavez and Castro, you've never been too concerned before. In fact, most of you idiots laude these people as some sort of great leaders and fine examples of Liberal/Socialist Ideology. They are your true heroes.

OrnotBitwise
08-15-2006, 11:04 AM
When it all comes down to it, the word "Islamofascist" is borne out of necessity because of pinheads who have a comprehension problem. We start with the "War on Terror" which was quickly rebuked by pinheads claiming, rightly so, that "terror" is a tactic, therefore, you can't wage war on a tactic. Then we attempted to explain "radical Muslim extremism" to you, and were met with the incredulous assertion that we just hate all Muslims and are racists. Next we transgressed into an idiotic debate over what exactly is "terrorism", as if it can be attributed to almost any act of violence against perceived innocent people.

So, in an attempt to get you pinheads to fully understand the weight of the situation and the serious nature of the threat we face, the amalgamation of radical Islamic extremism and theocracy was merged with the iron-fisted nature of tyranny and dictatorship, and the word "Islamofascist" emerged. You have no one but your pinheaded self to blame. Most of us were happy and content with "terrorists" to describe who the enemy is, but since nothing we tried to articulate was resonating, and every argument became a parsing of words and nuanced definitions, a better descriptor was needed.

And I don't understand why you are all of a sudden concerned with Chavez and Castro, you've never been too concerned before. In fact, most of you idiots laude these people as some sort of great leaders and fine examples of Liberal/Socialist Ideology. They are your true heroes.
Christo-fascist alert! Everybody down!

Cypress
08-15-2006, 11:05 AM
When it all comes down to it, the word "Islamofascist" is borne out of necessity because of pinheads who have a comprehension problem. We start with the "War on Terror" which was quickly rebuked by pinheads claiming, rightly so, that "terror" is a tactic, therefore, you can't wage war on a tactic. Then we attempted to explain "radical Muslim extremism" to you, and were met with the incredulous assertion that we just hate all Muslims and are racists. Next we transgressed into an idiotic debate over what exactly is "terrorism", as if it can be attributed to almost any act of violence against perceived innocent people.

So, in an attempt to get you pinheads to fully understand the weight of the situation and the serious nature of the threat we face, the amalgamation of radical Islamic extremism and theocracy was merged with the iron-fisted nature of tyranny and dictatorship, and the word "Islamofascist" emerged. You have no one but your pinheaded self to blame. Most of us were happy and content with "terrorists" to describe who the enemy is, but since nothing we tried to articulate was resonating, and every argument became a parsing of words and nuanced definitions, a better descriptor was needed.

And I don't understand why you are all of a sudden concerned with Chavez and Castro, you've never been too concerned before. In fact, most of you idiots laude these people as some sort of great leaders and fine examples of Liberal/Socialist Ideology. They are your true heroes.


Why do you feel the need to invent new words and parrot them? Words invented by karl rove?

I call them what they are: islamic theocrats. Theocracy is plenty scary enough. Escaping the scourge of theocracy is part of the reason this nation was founded, and the very first right in the Bill of Rights, is a guarantee AGAINST theocracy.

OrnotBitwise
08-15-2006, 11:08 AM
Why do you feel the need to invent new words and parrot them? Words invented by karl rove?

I call them what they are: islamic theocrats. Theocracy is plenty scary enough. Escaping the scourge of theocracy is part of the reason this nation was founded, and the very first right in the Bill of Rights, is a guarantee AGAINST theocracy.
There's a perfectly good word already in circulation. That word is "Islamists." It was coined, I believe, by commentators in the Islamic world, trying to describe the peculiar form of theocratic authoritarianism that arose from the Iranian revolution.

Damocles
08-15-2006, 11:13 AM
There's a perfectly good word already in circulation. That word is "Islamists." It was coined, I believe, by commentators in the Islamic world, trying to describe the peculiar form of theocratic authoritarianism that arose from the Iranian revolution.
Yeah, but it has too many sibilant and hard consonants in a row for Bush...

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-15-2006, 11:20 AM
Why do you feel the need to invent new words and parrot them? Words invented by karl rove?

I call them what they are: islamic theocrats. Theocracy is plenty scary enough. Escaping the scourge of theocracy is part of the reason this nation was founded, and the very first right in the Bill of Rights, is a guarantee AGAINST theocracy.

Theocracy is not the threat or the problem. We've had theocracies for centuries, and never had a real problem with radical terrorists wanting to inflict horror on innocent people because of their religion, or at least not in recent history of civilized society. This is a completely new threat, unlike any we've had to deal with, and in the context of the words we normally associate, seems to be completely misunderstood and under-estimated.

I explained why the need was felt to invent a new word, because you are too pinheaded and ignorant to understand the current words... radical Islamic... extremist... terrorism... You get too caught up in the minutia of dissecting the word and arguing an invalid point based on some vague definition that doesn't apply here. So, in order to define more precisely, what the enemy is and why they are a real danger and threat, the word "Islamofascist" was coined. You don't like it because it's not something you can easily refute and pick apart, you can't create a defense for Islamofascists like you could with "terrorists" because you don't know how to defend something you don't fully understand.

maineman
08-15-2006, 11:28 AM
It's much like "phobes" for the left. Don't want illegal immigrants call them "xenophobes" even though it doesn't fit and they aren't afraid of immigrants... Bigoted towards something but not afraid of it, must be a "phobe"... etc... Equally foolish idiotic crap comes from the other side. Or are you a realismphobe?

so because, in your opinion, idiotic crap comes from the left, you support and condone it from the right? whatever. If we lump all muslims in one big pile and call them enemies, regardless of what a great political rallying cry it might create, then we will be forced to kill them all.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-15-2006, 11:29 AM
Escaping the scourge of theocracy is part of the reason this nation was founded, and the very first right in the Bill of Rights, is a guarantee AGAINST theocracy.

I don't know that I completely agree with this, Britain is a Monarchy, not a Theocracy. The monarchy was beholden to the Church of England, and restricted the Puritan's religious freedoms. America was formed on the basis of the theocratic idea that we are endowed by God to govern ourselves, rather than being governed by kings. The first right in the Bill of Rights, establishes that government can't take our religious freedom away and are only there to protect it and insure it. In a sense, we are a "universal theocracy" by guaranteeing that ANY and ALL religious belief will be protected.

Cypress
08-15-2006, 11:33 AM
Theocracy is not the threat or the problem. We've had theocracies for centuries, and never had a real problem with radical terrorists wanting to inflict horror on innocent people because of their religion, or at least not in recent history of civilized society. This is a completely new threat, unlike any we've had to deal with, and in the context of the words we normally associate, seems to be completely misunderstood and under-estimated.

I explained why the need was felt to invent a new word, because you are too pinheaded and ignorant to understand the current words... radical Islamic... extremist... terrorism... You get too caught up in the minutia of dissecting the word and arguing an invalid point based on some vague definition that doesn't apply here. So, in order to define more precisely, what the enemy is and why they are a real danger and threat, the word "Islamofascist" was coined. You don't like it because it's not something you can easily refute and pick apart, you can't create a defense for Islamofascists like you could with "terrorists" because you don't know how to defend something you don't fully understand.

Yes, not all theocracies are a threat to the united states.

Neither are all fascist states a threat to the united states. We were quite friendly with the Pinochet regime in Chile.

I'm only worried about theocrats that are a threat to the united states: al qaeda.

Iran was called a theocracy ever since 1979. And its been a thorn in our side.

Damocles
08-15-2006, 11:44 AM
so because, in your opinion, idiotic crap comes from the left, you support and condone it from the right? whatever. If we lump all muslims in one big pile and call them enemies, regardless of what a great political rallying cry it might create, then we will be forced to kill them all.
No, but it is hypocrisy to attempt to only point it out from one side while pretending the other is perfect.

Anyway, I think this fits a heck of a lot better than "homophobe" does with bigots... They aren't "afraid" at all, and as I have explained depending on how you are looking at the whole "fascist" angle there are far more similarities in that one... This also doesn't include "all muslims" that is a fabrication of your own.

It just gets inane that the left is so afraid of a word. Is it because you really don't want them to define the enemy? Or just on their terms?

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-15-2006, 11:48 AM
Yes, not all theocracies are a threat to the united states.

Neither are all fascist states a threat to the united states. We were quite friendly with the Pinochet regime in Chile.

I'm only worried about theocrats that are a threat to the united states: al qaeda.

Iran was called a theocracy ever since 1979. And its been a thorn in our side.

That's the whole point, "theocracy" is not necessarily a threat, neither is fascism or Islam, it is the combination of these elements which comprise the very real and dangerous threat of our time. When we were saying "war on terror" you were not comprehending it... When we were telling you about "radical Islam" it fostered notions of "radical liberals" and you took exception, and called us racist... When we refer to "terrorists", you find profoundly enlightened ways to explain how we are all "terrorists" in some aspect... When we explained this was a perverted theocratic extremism, you didn't understand why we hated ALL Muslims... All the way down the line, you have failed to understand the nature of the threat we face and who our enemy is, and "Islamofascist" is a very good word to encompass ALL the aspects of what we are up against.

The people who are our enemy, are not Muslim any more than the KKK is Christian. This is the real dirty little secret that no one wants to admit. They have perverted their religious dogma, and made it acceptable to commit horrific acts of terror and violence on innocent people, in an attempt to force us all to live in their 5th Century social world... that IS fascist. There is no better word to describe it. The "nationalist" element of traditional fascism, has been replaced by the radical perversion of Islam, therefore, Islamofascism is created.

OrnotBitwise
08-15-2006, 11:51 AM
No, but it is hypocrisy to attempt to only point it out from one side while pretending the other is perfect.

Anyway, I think this fits a heck of a lot better than "homophobe" does with bigots... They aren't "afraid" at all, and as I have explained depending on how you are looking at the whole "fascist" angle there are far more similarities in that one... This also doesn't include "all muslims" that is a fabrication of your own.

It just gets inane that the left is so afraid of a word. Is it because you really don't want them to define the enemy? Or just on their terms?
Wait a minute, here. Are you seriously rejecting the notion that negative bias -- bigotry -- sometimes arises out of fear of the object? That's pretty extreme, Damo.

It's pretty well accepted, I believe, that at least one common cause of hatred for homosexuals is indeed homophobia. That's especially true of the more extreme and violent cases.

Cypress
08-15-2006, 11:53 AM
They have perverted their religious dogma, and made it acceptable to commit horrific acts of terror and violence on innocent people, in an attempt to force us all to live in their 5th Century social world... that IS fascist.

Put down the Karl Rove kool aid.

"forcing us to live in the 5th century" has nothing to do with the formal definition and historical practice of fascism. Look it up in any dictionary or encylopedia.

What you're describing is an extremist theocratic movement, based upon a perversion of islam.

OrnotBitwise
08-15-2006, 11:58 AM
They have perverted their religious dogma, and made it acceptable to commit horrific acts of terror and violence on innocent people, in an attempt to force us all to live in their 5th Century social world... that IS fascist.

Put down the Karl Rove kool aid.

"forcing us to live in the 5th century" has nothing to do with the formal definition and historical practice of fascism. Look it up in any dictionary or encylopedia.

What you're describing is an extremist theocratic movement, based upon a perversion of islam.Indeed. If one were to extrapolate some modern fascist movement -- a real and viable one, not some group of genetically degraded neo-nazi wannabes -- it wouldn't look at all like the Islamists. Such a movement would almost certainly embrace any technological and social expedient for breeding and training children. They would try to force us all to live in the 22nd century -- as they interpret it, of course -- not the 5th.

maineman
08-15-2006, 11:59 AM
No, but it is hypocrisy to attempt to only point it out from one side while pretending the other is perfect.

Anyway, I think this fits a heck of a lot better than "homophobe" does with bigots... They aren't "afraid" at all, and as I have explained depending on how you are looking at the whole "fascist" angle there are far more similarities in that one... This also doesn't include "all muslims" that is a fabrication of your own.

It just gets inane that the left is so afraid of a word. Is it because you really don't want them to define the enemy? Or just on their terms?

calling people who are all worried about gays getting married "homophobes".... and I have to ask, what the fuck are they AFRIAD of? do they think that having a gay couple next door will somehow be contagious?.... does not start a global war against another religion.

Calling any group in the muslim world who doesn't go kissy kissy with America "Islamofascists" is starting down the slippery slope that just might.

Al Qaeda are islamofascist. Hezbollah are islamofascist. Two completely different groups with two completely different agendas, yet now they are the same.... when will it end?

uscitizen
08-15-2006, 12:04 PM
dixie, we all know the republicans are the experts on the Islamic world. After all look how well our venture in Iraq has worked out.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-15-2006, 12:06 PM
dixie, we all know the republicans are the experts on the Islamic world. After all look how well our venture in Iraq has worked out.


Iraq was secular, remember?

Cypress
08-15-2006, 12:06 PM
Indeed. If one were to extrapolate some modern fascist movement -- a real and viable one, not some group of genetically degraded neo-nazi wannabes -- it wouldn't look at all like the Islamists. Such a movement would almost certainly embrace any technological and social expedient for breeding and training children. They would try to force us all to live in the 22nd century -- as they interpret it, of course -- not the 5th.

I'll tell you, IMO, why Bush and Rove are playing these disingenous word games, and inventing new definitions of words.

They don't want to call bin ladin what he is - a loony theocrat - because I'd guess about 20% of bush's hardcore base doesn't consider "theocracy", in some form, neccessarily a bad thing. Or, at a minium, a federal government that is largely based on biblical law.

"Theocracy" isn't neccessarily a scary word to these people. "Fascist" is a much better marketing tool.

Cypress
08-15-2006, 12:08 PM
Iraq was secular, remember?

I think he's saying you were wrong in virtually all your predictions and assessments. You're credibility is basically in the toilet.

Damocles
08-15-2006, 12:10 PM
Wait a minute, here. Are you seriously rejecting the notion that negative bias -- bigotry -- sometimes arises out of fear of the object? That's pretty extreme, Damo.

It's pretty well accepted, I believe, that at least one common cause of hatred for homosexuals is indeed homophobia. That's especially true of the more extreme and violent cases.

Rubbish. I have never stated anything of the sort. "Phobes" is used to term all bigots... It really doesn't fit. "Accepted" or not.

Newest terms that I have heard...

"Islamophobia"... That one was from a UK article.
"xenophobia" ... this one was used to describe somebody stating that we need to open legal immigration while closing down the border for illegal crossing...
etc...

Attempting to limit this in its entirety to "homophobia" is attempting to disregard the point of the original post.

"phobe" is not fitting, in fact it has less correlation than "fascist" does with the other. That a minority of people who are bigots might be "scared" of homosexuals that certainly doesn't make "homophobia" the norm as it is used.

It is accepted terminology among the left. We still like to make fun of people who use it. Phobophobia and realistphobia run rampant in the left.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-15-2006, 12:13 PM
They have perverted their religious dogma, and made it acceptable to commit horrific acts of terror and violence on innocent people, in an attempt to force us all to live in their 5th Century social world... that IS fascist.

Put down the Karl Rove kool aid.

"forcing us to live in the 5th century" has nothing to do with the formal definition and historical practice of fascism. Look it up in any dictionary or encylopedia.

What you're describing is an extremist theocratic movement, based upon a perversion of islam.

fas·cism (fshzm)

often Fascism
1. a. 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.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.


Why don't YOU pick up a dictionary and tell me how this isn't describing the Islamic radical "movement" you keep yammering about? Replace "nationalism" with "radical fundamentalist Islam" and you have "Islamofascism" plain and simple. Of course, you never were the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Damocles
08-15-2006, 12:15 PM
Seems like number 2 fits rather well... And number 1 has many similarities that make it an actual logical fit. Good one there, Dix!

Cypress
08-15-2006, 12:20 PM
fas·cism (fshzm)

often Fascism
1. a. 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.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.


Why don't YOU pick up a dictionary and tell me how this isn't describing the Islamic radical "movement" you keep yammering about? Replace "nationalism" with "radical fundamentalist Islam" and you have "Islamofascism" plain and simple. Of course, you never were the sharpest knife in the drawer.


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.

I see you cherry-picked the most generic definition possible. But, ooops....even the most generic defintion possible, doesn't fit. Al Qaeda is not based on "extreme nationalism, and racism".

Al qaeda is the exact opposite of a "nationalist" and "racist" movement. Al Qaeda is a pan-nationalist regional or global movement, which is as likely to support black sudanese muslims as they are asian indonesian muslims.

Damocles
08-15-2006, 12:29 PM
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.

I see you cherry-picked the most generic definition possible. But, ooops....even the most generic defintion possible, doesn't fit. Al Qaeda is not based on "extreme nationalism, and racism".

Al qaeda is the exact opposite of a "nationalist" and "racist" movement. Al Qaeda is a pan-nationalist regional or global movement, which is as likely to support black sudanese muslims as they are asian indonesian muslims.
I see that you conveniently ignore the second definition because you don't want to see that you have been arguing nonsense throughout the thread saying that it "doesn't fit" when it actually does....

Plus, I have explained how there are similarities (not the same but similarities) between nationalism and centrist attitude of the Caliphate beliefs... As well as twinges of "racism" found in the ideation of "Us or Them" mentality that is present in Nationalism and Racism and found within those with these beliefs.

Ignoring inconvenient truth doesn't make you right.

uscitizen
08-15-2006, 12:31 PM
Iraq was secular, remember?

Secular schmecular, they are islamic.

Damocles
08-15-2006, 12:32 PM
Secular schmecular, they are islamic.
Well, unless Bush is invading. Then we read article after article calling them "secular" and how surprised Saddam was that the US wasn't dealing with him, they being "secular" and all....

Cypress
08-15-2006, 12:34 PM
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.

I see you cherry-picked the most generic definition possible. But, ooops....even the most generic defintion possible, doesn't fit. Al Qaeda is not based on "extreme nationalism, and racism".

Al qaeda is the exact opposite of a "nationalist" and "racist" movement. Al Qaeda is a pan-nationalist regional or global movement, which is as likely to support black sudanese muslims as they are asian indonesian muslims.

Even though you cherry picked the most generic definition you could find, it still described Hitler and Mussolini to a tee....but fails to desribe Al Qaeda.

Indeed, Hitler and Mussolini based their ideology on extreme nationalism and racism. i.e., the "exceptionalism" of the aryan, and "roman" races, respectitvely. And they both were unitary, iron-fisted dictators.

Al qaeda, in contrast, in pan-nationalist, and certainly not at all racist. They support black sudanese muslims and well as asian muslims. They make no distinction based on nationality or skin color.

And, fundamentalist islamic theocracies are somewhat decentralized. There is no equivalent of an iron-fisted, singular unitary leader - as your definition requires. This is partly a function of the islamic religion, which itself is highly decentralized. In islamic theocracies, there isn't an iron-fisted unitary executive who wields all the power. There are councils of mullahs and religious clerics who make judgements based on sharia law. And local islamic councils carry out that sharia law with a relative amount of autonomy.

uscitizen
08-15-2006, 12:35 PM
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.

I see you cherry-picked the most generic definition possible. But, ooops....even the most generic defintion possible, doesn't fit. Al Qaeda is not based on "extreme nationalism, and racism".

Al qaeda is the exact opposite of a "nationalist" and "racist" movement. Al Qaeda is a pan-nationalist regional or global movement, which is as likely to support black sudanese muslims as they are asian indonesian muslims.

VERY good point Cypress

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-15-2006, 12:53 PM
Al qaeda is the exact opposite of a "nationalist" and "racist" movement.

This is not correct. As I pointed out, replace "nationalism" with "radical Islamic fundamentalism" and it's the same thing. Their "nation" is "perverted Islam" and they have rallied around this perverted philosophy to perpetrate fascism through terrorism. They are racist in every sense, because they advocate hate for "infidels and jews" which are groups of people they practice profound prejudice against.

As for the "iron-fisted leader" required by fascism, that would be Allah, according to the radicals. It is he, who has ordained them the right to perpetrate terror on the rest of us in his name.

And, fundamentalist islamic theocracies are somewhat decentralized.

Perhaps you should Google the word "Caliphate" and see what it says, because these people do indeed have a cenralized goal of theocratic domination.

maineman
08-15-2006, 12:55 PM
replace "shit" with "shinola" and your shoes wouldn't smell so funny

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-15-2006, 01:04 PM
Even though you cherry picked the most generic definition you could find...

It came straight from dictionary.com and I didn't even have to edit it, I posted exactly what the dictionary definition of "fascism" is. You are the one who wants to articulate some specific political ideology from the 1940's to define the word, and that is an incorrect assertion. Certainly, 1940's Italy is a good example of Fascism, but it's not the only thing that can be Fascism.

uscitizen
08-15-2006, 01:11 PM
This is not correct. As I pointed out, replace "nationalism" with "radical Islamic fundamentalism" and it's the same thing. Their "nation" is "perverted Islam" and they have rallied around this perverted philosophy to perpetrate fascism through terrorism. They are racist in every sense, because they advocate hate for "infidels and jews" which are groups of people they practice profound prejudice against.
//

So does that mean that there is a nation for all groups scattered around the world that believe alike ?
The Bush nation :)

OrnotBitwise
08-15-2006, 01:26 PM
replace "shit" with "shinola" and your shoes wouldn't smell so funny
Good one, maineman. :clink:

OrnotBitwise
08-15-2006, 01:27 PM
This is not correct. As I pointed out, replace "nationalism" with "radical Islamic fundamentalism" and it's the same thing. Their "nation" is "perverted Islam" and they have rallied around this perverted philosophy to perpetrate fascism through terrorism. They are racist in every sense, because they advocate hate for "infidels and jews" which are groups of people they practice profound prejudice against.
//

So does that mean that there is a nation for all groups scattered around the world that believe alike ?
The Bush nation :)He seems to want to be able to call any authoritarian movement "fascist" if it pleases him to do so.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-15-2006, 01:59 PM
He seems to want to be able to call any authoritarian movement "fascist" if it pleases him to do so.

That wasn't what I said at all. We are talking about a specific authoritarian movement with specific radical perverted elements of fascism and theocracy. You guys are real good at lumping everything in a great big box and claiming we are against "all" of something, why is that? No one has ever claimed to hate ALL Muslims, or ALL radicals, or ALL fundamentalists, or even ALL fascists. No one has said that ALL of anything is the same as the isolated enemy we are discussing, yet that is what you people continually try to convey as your understanding of our positions. My question is, why do you feel compelled to be so intellectually dishonest about it?

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-15-2006, 02:03 PM
This is not correct. As I pointed out, replace "nationalism" with "radical Islamic fundamentalism" and it's the same thing. Their "nation" is "perverted Islam" and they have rallied around this perverted philosophy to perpetrate fascism through terrorism. They are racist in every sense, because they advocate hate for "infidels and jews" which are groups of people they practice profound prejudice against.
//

So does that mean that there is a nation for all groups scattered around the world that believe alike ?
The Bush nation :)

No, it means, in the context of "fascism" as it applies to radical Islamic fundamentalists, the "nationalist" element is replaced by "religious perversion" of Islamic faith. I am merely attempting to explain something you didn't seem to understand, I am not making some broad-based proclaimation about all groups around the world being their own "nation" or any other bird-brain analogy you throw up as a straw man.

Cypress
08-15-2006, 02:27 PM
Al qaeda is the exact opposite of a "nationalist" and "racist" movement.

This is not correct. As I pointed out, replace "nationalism" with "radical Islamic fundamentalism" and it's the same thing. Their "nation" is "perverted Islam" and they have rallied around this perverted philosophy to perpetrate fascism through terrorism. They are racist in every sense, because they advocate hate for "infidels and jews" which are groups of people they practice profound prejudice against.

As for the "iron-fisted leader" required by fascism, that would be Allah, according to the radicals. It is he, who has ordained them the right to perpetrate terror on the rest of us in his name.

And, fundamentalist islamic theocracies are somewhat decentralized.

Perhaps you should Google the word "Caliphate" and see what it says, because these people do indeed have a cenralized goal of theocratic domination.

As I pointed out, replace "nationalism" with "radical Islamic fundamentalism" and it's the same thing

LMAO!

Just like I told damo, Rove's soldiers want to re-write and replace formal definstions, by shoe-horning their definition of theocrats, into the dictionary fascist definition.

Dude, you can't pound a sqaure peg into a round hole. Nore cab you change a word's definition. A religious inspired movement, pan-nationalist is theocratic.

I could just as well "replace" some of the words in a dictionary definition of "Horse", to make it seem like a Cow.

Damocles
08-15-2006, 02:30 PM
He posted the definition from dictionary.com... It seems to fit better than assumptions about the definition. Especially number 2.

Cypress
08-15-2006, 02:33 PM
He posted the definition from dictionary.com... It seems to fit better than assumptions about the definition. Especially number 2.

read my previous response. Fascism requires extreme nationalism and/or racism, and the existence of an iron-fisted dictator with unitary powers.

None of which apply to the pan-nationalist, non-racist al qaeda goal of the spread of islamic theocracies governed by sharia law.

Damocles
08-15-2006, 02:36 PM
However, read my post and why it fits into the similarities... As well as the fact that it fits 100% into the second definition provided in the dictionary. To deny the similarities, then ignore the definitions that you don't want to exist is what you are accusing somebody else of doing.

It seems that it isn't Dixie trying to redefine something...

Cypress
08-15-2006, 02:40 PM
However, read my post and why it fits into the similarities... As well as the fact that it fits 100% into the second definition provided in the dictionary. To deny the similarities, then ignore the definitions that you don't want to exist is what you are accusing somebody else of doing.

It seems that it isn't Dixie trying to redefine something...

The "second" definition is a subset of the first.

As a "stand alone" definition, all number two does is descrive authoritarianism.

If you want to call Bin laden an authoriarian, I would agree.

To call him a fascist is an incorrect use of the english language, and nobody on the planet is doing it except Glenn Beck, Limabaugh, Hannity, the Bushies, Fox News and Dixie. That speaks volumes.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-15-2006, 02:41 PM
Fascism requires extreme nationalism and/or racism

No, it doesn't require it, it often includes it, but as I read the definition, it doesn't "require" it.

"...and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."

And as I stated, their "nation" is the radical perversion of Islam. They are as "nationalist" as any fascists have ever been, they just have a different version of "nation" than you can comprehend, apparently.

Damocles
08-15-2006, 02:43 PM
That is not how dictionary definitions work... The second definition is the second-most used contextual definition of the word.

I am sorry if the dictionary doesn't supply you with the definition you so desperately want it to, but redefining the word is not what is being done by your opposition in this case. The one attempting to ignore actual dictionary definitions is not Dixie.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-15-2006, 02:44 PM
Dude, you can't pound a sqaure peg into a round hole. Nore cab you change a word's definition.

No one has changed the definition of a word. We are discussing the new word, Islamofascism, and how it applies to the enemy we are faced with. You are arguing that "fascism" can't be used in the word, because it doesn't fit your predetermined ideas of what "fascism" is, which are inaccurate according to the dictionary. You seem to be the one who wants to redefine words here, not me.

Cypress
08-15-2006, 02:57 PM
Dude, you can't pound a sqaure peg into a round hole. Nore cab you change a word's definition.

No one has changed the definition of a word. We are discussing the new word, Islamofascism, and how it applies to the enemy we are faced with. You are arguing that "fascism" can't be used in the word, because it doesn't fit your predetermined ideas of what "fascism" is, which are inaccurate according to the dictionary. You seem to be the one who wants to redefine words here, not me.

I understand that you, Dixie, can get caught up in wartime propaganda.

"Islamo fascism" is a meaningless term - wartime propagandizing, really - intended to incite an emotional reaction. Almost without exception, the ones parroting the term are non-thinking puppets for the Bush admin.: Hannity, Michael Savage, Hannity.

Actual intellectual conservative pundits - like Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens - have denounced the term as simplistic and stupid.

Sir Evil
08-15-2006, 03:01 PM
I understand that you, Dixie, can get caught up in wartime propaganda.

"Islamo fascism" is a meaningless term - wartime propagandizing, really - intended to incite an emotional reaction. Almost without exception, the ones parroting the term are non-thinking puppets for the Bush admin.: Hannity, Michael Savage, Hannity.

Actual intellectual conservative pundits - like Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens - have denounced the term as simplistic and stupid.

What about another hero of mine Bill O'Reilly?

Cypress
08-15-2006, 03:01 PM
Joseph Sobran, conservative syndicated columnist and writer for the National Review:.


"Islamofascism is nothing but an empty propaganda term. And wartime propaganda is usually, if not always, crafted to produce hysteria, the destruction of any sense of proportion. Such words, undefined and unmeasured, are used by people more interested in making us lose our heads than in keeping their own."

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-15-2006, 03:11 PM
Joseph Sobran, conservative syndicated columnist and writer for the National Review:.


"Islamofascism is nothing but an empty propaganda term. And wartime propaganda is usually, if not always, crafted to produce hysteria, the destruction of any sense of proportion. Such words, undefined and unmeasured, are used by people more interested in making us lose our heads than in keeping their own."

Well, propaganda seems to be the order of the day with you people, so you shouldn't mind a little of it thrown back in your face now and then, should you? You can claim it is an "empty propaganda term" all you like, it's been explained here, and the definition fits appropriately with what we are talking about, whether you like it or not.

The purpose of calling it Islamofascism, is to denote the specificity of the evil we are facing and the special nature of the enemy we are at war with. As I said, it's your own fault this transpired, we were all fine with "terrorists" being used to describe it, but that didn't resonate with you, it was too easy for you to parse out and make claims that everyone is a 'terrorist' in some respects. ...One man's terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter... It's hard to say that about Islamofascists, because one man's Islamofascist, is every man's Islamofascist.

So, for the sake of clarity, and to put an end to the word-parsing minutia, we will stop calling it the "War on Terror" and start saying we are in a war with Islamofascists, because that fits more appropriately with what is actually happening. Sorry you don't like it, but it's your own fault.

OrnotBitwise
08-15-2006, 03:15 PM
What about another hero of mine Bill O'Reilly?He's had to give up saying it because he was foaming at the mouth too much. It drove the makeup people crazy. I hear that the last straw was when he took a bite out of one of the boom mics.

uscitizen
08-15-2006, 03:17 PM
They keep trying new rabies cures on Oreiley, but none seem to work.

Cypress
08-15-2006, 03:30 PM
Well, propaganda seems to be the order of the day with you people, so you shouldn't mind a little of it thrown back in your face now and then, should you? You can claim it is an "empty propaganda term" all you like, it's been explained here, and the definition fits appropriately with what we are talking about, whether you like it or not.

The purpose of calling it Islamofascism, is to denote the specificity of the evil we are facing and the special nature of the enemy we are at war with. As I said, it's your own fault this transpired, we were all fine with "terrorists" being used to describe it, but that didn't resonate with you, it was too easy for you to parse out and make claims that everyone is a 'terrorist' in some respects. ...One man's terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter... It's hard to say that about Islamofascists, because one man's Islamofascist, is every man's Islamofascist.

So, for the sake of clarity, and to put an end to the word-parsing minutia, we will stop calling it the "War on Terror" and start saying we are in a war with Islamofascists, because that fits more appropriately with what is actually happening. Sorry you don't like it, but it's your own fault.


Well, propaganda seems to be the order of the day with you people, so you shouldn't mind a little of it thrown back in your face now and then, should you?...The purpose of calling it Islamofascism, is to denote the specificity of the evil we are facing and the special nature of the enemy we are at war with.

BINGO!

Whew, finally a bush puppet who admits the truth. The whole "islamofacist" nonsense, was invented by republican partisans as a marketing tool at best, propaganda at worst. A "word" to "clarify" the evil we face.

Relax dude. You don't have to invent words to market your war. Everybody wants Bin Ladin and his cronies brought down

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-15-2006, 04:36 PM
Whew, finally a bush puppet who admits the truth. The whole "islamofacist" nonsense, was invented by republican partisans as a marketing tool at best, propaganda at worst. A "word" to "clarify" the evil we face.

Aww... you don't have to spew and sputter about it, no one is trying to change your mind about anything, we understand you are a partisan douche with an agenda, and nothing we can ever say will resonate with you. Several lies I would like to point out... I'm not a "Bush puppet" by any means, although I understand why you have to call me names and try to marginalize what I say, it refutes your idiocy. Secondly, Islamofascism is not "nonsense" it's the threat we face and the enemy we are at war with. It wasn't "invented by Republicans" as a "marketing tool" or whatever nonsense you keep spewing, it is an appropriate term to describe something that conventional words did not suffice to describe. And lastly, there is no need to use quotes around "clarify" ...it's exactly what Islamofascism does, it clarifies what you have had a difficult time understanding.

Now, I fully understand, you are a hateful and bitter little punk, who just wants to lob grenades at Republicans, because you are too stupid to think for yourself and too ignorant to educate yourself on world history, but I wonder what it is you hope to accomplish, other than possibly impressing some of your other liberal punk buddies here? Popping off some sarcastic, smart-ass reply to me, is not scoring any points in this debate for you, and it's not hurting my feelings at all, nor is it helping me to become enlightened to your viewpoint. It's essentially showing everyone, just how devoid of an argument and point you really are. ...Which is my purpose for living!

AnyOldIron
08-16-2006, 03:33 AM
Fascism requires extreme nationalism and/or racism

No, it doesn't require it, it often includes it, but as I read the definition, it doesn't "require" it.

Nationalism is a fundamental element of fascism, without a nationalistic element, it isn't fascism.

Racism isn't something that is required for the definition, it is mostly a side effect of zealous nationalism.

AnyOldIron
08-16-2006, 03:38 AM
Secondly, Islamofascism is not "nonsense" it's the threat we face and the enemy we are at war with. It wasn't "invented by Republicans" as a "marketing tool" or whatever nonsense you keep spewing, it is an appropriate term to describe something that conventional words did not suffice to describe.

Islamofascism IS a term 'created' by individuals in the US, mostly I would guess by supporters of the Administration.

It is a term that doesn't fit what it is describing. It isn't appropriate.

AQ et al aren't fascists, fascism is the amalgamation of the nation state with commerce for the promotion of the nation state.

These theocrats have no interest even in the notion of the nation state. They hope to create a theocratic dictatorial empire.

They are Islamic Extremist Theocrats.

Using the phrase Islamofascists is entirely a rhetorical tool, designed to create pathos but it is highly inaccurate and thus weak rhetoric.

AnyOldIron
08-16-2006, 03:53 AM
The purpose of calling it Islamofascism, is to denote the specificity of the evil we are facing and the special nature of the enemy we are at war with.

It doesn't specify the threat we face, as these people aren't fascists. Fascism, as I have explained in great detail ad nausium, is a specific term for a specific political persuasion, the amalgamation of state and commerce for the enhancement of the nation state.

That doesn't fit with the ideology of these people, who have no interest whatsoever in the notion of the nation state, nor any specific economic perspective.

Their entire purpose is the creation of a theocratic empire, based on religious law. They are Islamic theocrats, not fascists.

The use of the the term fascist is intended to imply evil, you are right, but it is weak rhetoric, because it poorly describes the perspectives of the people we are discussing.

Don't want to sound like Damo but it is a rhetorical strawman...

Cancel7
08-16-2006, 06:49 AM
The purpose of calling it Islamofascism, is to denote the specificity of the evil we are facing and the special nature of the enemy we are at war with.

It doesn't specify the threat we face, as these people aren't fascists. Fascism, as I have explained in great detail ad nausium, is a specific term for a specific political persuasion, the amalgamation of state and commerce for the enhancement of the nation state.

That doesn't fit with the ideology of these people, who have no interest whatsoever in the notion of the nation state, nor any specific economic perspective.

Their entire purpose is the creation of a theocratic empire, based on religious law. They are Islamic theocrats, not fascists.

The use of the the term fascist is intended to imply evil, you are right, but it is weak rhetoric, because it poorly describes the perspectives of the people we are discussing.

Don't want to sound like Damo but it is a rhetorical strawman...

It's my personal opinion that the reigning powers do not ever want Islamic fanatics to be termed what you rightly point out they are..."Islamic theocrats" for the plain and simple reason that the reigning powers are themselves, Christian theocrats, and they do not want to even imply that there is anything wrong with that, or, that the two, are remotely related, when in fact, they are exactly alike. And both dangerous.

AnyOldIron
08-16-2006, 07:20 AM
Very true Darla. It is all about rhetorical connotations. Theocrat, due to their preponderance for theocracy, doesn't sound half as threatening as fascist....

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-16-2006, 07:27 AM
Arnold, the definition of "fascism" was posted a long time ago, and you continue to insist on some other definition. I simply don't know what to say, except you are just plain wrong here. You can keep on repeating yourself over and over, but honestly, I read your ill-informed opinion already, and you've offered no further relevant information. You are describing the specific fascism found in 1940's Italy, and no doubt, that was indeed fascism, but it is not the only form fascism can take, nor is it the defining factor of fascism, it's actually the other way around.

Now, you can either accept what the dictionary says the word means, and we can proceed from there, or you can continue to insist on your narrow specific definition which is incorrect. I really don't care.

As for Dumbass Darla, I think it takes someone on the verge of retardation to see Islamic and Christian theocrats as "exactly alike." Perhaps to an Atheist, you could find remarkable similarity, but to most reasonable and rational people with any knowledge of the two theocratic views, there is a clear difference. It's just plain stupid to argue with someone so dense, so I won't bother explaining the many stark differences between Christian and Islamic extremists, but I certainly can't recall the last time Pat Robertson called for the beheading of Muslims in the name of Jesus.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-16-2006, 07:36 AM
fas·cism (fshzm)

often Fascism
1. a. 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.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.


Here it is again, Arnold. From Dictionary.com, in it's entirety. Please show me where the definition says anything about "required nationalism" or "the amalgamation of state and commerce for the enhancement of the nation state"? It simply doesn't say that, and I'm really sorry that it doesn't, I know how badly you wish it did, and how much you want to claim it does, but it just doesn't.

Now, keep repeating your false definition like a parrot, and keep making a complete fool of yourself, or accept what most thinking and intelligent people do, the dictionary definition of what we are discussing.

maineman
08-16-2006, 07:43 AM
It cracks me up that Dixie used to castigate me for relying on dictionary.com for defintions...and now he is doing it. The fact of the matter is that the dictionary definition - this one in particular, IS limiting in regards to the true meaning of fascism... and Dixie shamelessly exploits that limitation to his benefit. He really is a gadfly.

uscitizen
08-16-2006, 07:46 AM
Dixie will latch onto anything that supports his distorted point of view.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-16-2006, 07:51 AM
Dixie will latch onto anything that supports his distorted point of view.

ROFLMFAO! ...Yeah, like the DICTIONARY! *GASP*

AnyOldIron
08-16-2006, 07:52 AM
Arnold, the definition of "fascism" was posted a long time ago, and you continue to insist on some other definition.

By the definition of fascism (and the definition has remained since the term was first coined) these people aren't fascists.

They are neither nationalist, nor commercialist.

They might be authoritarian and dictatorial, but they aren't defining factors in fascism. Soviet Russia was both those and not fascism.

Neither is being anti-Jewish fascism. That is a defining factor of Naziism and not common amongst all fascists. Being anti Jewish is racist.

These people are theocrats.

As for 'the dictionary'...


fascism A right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with a totalitarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism. In ancient Rome, the authority of the state was symbolized by the fasces , a bundle of rods bound together (signifying popular unity) with a protruding axe-head (denoting leadership). As such, it was appropriated by Mussolini to label the movement he led to power in Italy in 1922, but was subsequently generalized to cover a whole range of movements in Europe during the inter-war period. These include the National Socialists in ...

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1O86:fascism/fascism+.html?refid=ency_botnm

Oxford University is the arbitrator of all English definitions.

AnyOldIron
08-16-2006, 07:53 AM
Now, keep repeating your false definition like a parrot,

See my above, Sophist....

AnyOldIron
08-16-2006, 07:55 AM
fascism
/fashiz’m/

• noun 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/fascism?view=uk

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-16-2006, 07:59 AM
Uhmmm.... Arnold?

I still do not see "required nationalism" or "the amalgamation of state and commerce for the enhancement of the nation state" in your definition.

And I will point out, no one is calling the Islamic radicals traditional "fascist" rather "Islamofascist" which is a combination of words. The nationalist element of Islamofascism is the religious pervesions of Islam, hence, Islamofascist.

AnyOldIron
08-16-2006, 08:13 AM
I still do not see "required nationalism" or "the amalgamation of state and commerce for the enhancement of the nation state" in your definition.

The definition reads "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing". This means that to be deemed fascist, an entity must be nationalistic.

And I will point out, no one is calling the Islamic radicals traditional "fascist" rather "Islamofascist" which is a combination of words. The nationalist element of Islamofascism is the religious pervesions of Islam, hence, Islamofascist.

I know retard, it is this weak rhetorical terminology I am arguing about.

It is an attempt to conjoin the two words Islamic and Fascist.

It is this that doesn't fit.

These theocrats aren't nationalist in any way, they reject the notion of the nation-state. Neither are they interested in economic issues.

Their sole intent is to create a theocracy.

That is why it is just weak rhetoric. The definition of these people as fascistic doesn't go.

AnyOldIron
08-16-2006, 08:33 AM
Let's see if I can spell it out simply for you Dixie.

The characteristics that make you believe they are fascist are their authoritarian and dictatorial nature, their oppressiveness and expansionism.

Firstly, all these characteristics are shared commonly with other ideologies, Soviet Communism, Monarchism and Theocracies. Even the US is expansionist.

So why not call them IslamoCommunists, or IslamoMonarchists?

What differentiates between these ideologies and Fascism is the nationalistic element and the fusing of economics with state for the advancement of the nation state.

This is not evident in these people's ideology. They exhibit no nationalist tendencies, they have no use for the notion nation-state. Their intention is to create an empire based on religious teachings, not the supremecy of an indvidual nation-state. They also have no opinion economically.

The most accurate description is Islamic (Islamo is a fictional word) theocrats.

Describing them as fascists because they are authoritarian, dictatorial, oppressive and expansionist doesn't fit, as we have seen those criteria fit many ideologies.

maineman
08-16-2006, 08:42 AM
but it fits the needs of the fearmongers so well!

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-16-2006, 09:01 AM
I still do not see "required nationalism" or "the amalgamation of state and commerce for the enhancement of the nation state" in your definition.

The definition reads "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing". This means that to be deemed fascist, an entity must be nationalistic.

And I will point out, no one is calling the Islamic radicals traditional "fascist" rather "Islamofascist" which is a combination of words. The nationalist element of Islamofascism is the religious pervesions of Islam, hence, Islamofascist.

I know retard, it is this weak rhetorical terminology I am arguing about.

It is an attempt to conjoin the two words Islamic and Fascist.

It is this that doesn't fit.

These theocrats aren't nationalist in any way, they reject the notion of the nation-state. Neither are they interested in economic issues.

Their sole intent is to create a theocracy.

That is why it is just weak rhetoric. The definition of these people as fascistic doesn't go.




So you are claiming that radical Islamics don't really seek an Islamic Caliphate across the middle east? They really don't desire to have people submit to their 5th century Muhammed Law? They are just peace-loving non-authoritarians, right?

You are an idiot.

Cypress
08-16-2006, 09:06 AM
So you are claiming that radical Islamics don't really seek an Islamic Caliphate across the middle east? They really don't desire to have people submit to their 5th century Muhammed Law? They are just peace-loving non-authoritarians, right?

You just proved AOI's point.

Yes, they seek to establish a THEOCRACY. Just as you describe above: a pan-nationalist (not nationalist) series of islamic nations, governed under sharia law, not secular law or laws of commerce.

AnyOldIron
08-16-2006, 09:10 AM
So you are claiming that radical Islamics don't really seek an Islamic Caliphate across the middle east? They really don't desire to have people submit to their 5th century Muhammed Law? They are just peace-loving non-authoritarians, right?

Don't want to sound like Damo, but that is a strawman argument....

Where have I ever claimed that these radical Muslims don't want Islamic Caliphate across the middle east?

My argument is that fascist isn't an accurate description. They are dictatorial, authoritarian, repressive theocrats, not fascists.

Being authoritarian, dictatorial and repressive doesn't make you fascist, especially when you are pan-national and theocratic.

Using the term fascists for these people is lazy rhetoric; weak, poor rhetoric, trying to use the negative connotations fascism rightly gained in the C20th.

You are an idiot.

Lol... Of course I am..... I can recognise and correct weak rhetoric, so I must be...

AnyOldIron
08-16-2006, 09:12 AM
a pan-nationalist (not nationalist) series of islamic nations,

Further to that...

There will be no Islamic nations, only the Caliphate. They have no interest in the concept of the nation-state.

Cypress
08-16-2006, 09:15 AM
Being authoritarian, dictatorial and repressive doesn't make you fascist, especially when you are pan-national and theocratic.

There are many forms of nation-states that are authoritarian and repressive, without being "fascist". Monarchies, communism, theocracies, feudal systems, etc.

Damocles
08-16-2006, 09:18 AM
Look. We looked the definition up in the dictionary and you are applying a different definition than was in the dictionary. Previously another poster on your side of the argument actually went and looked up a word in the dictionary to insure that a proper definition was being applied. In this case it is your side that ignores what you don't want to see in the actual dictionary in an attempt to define away a suddenly clearly accurate definition...

I am amazed at the dichotomy....

AnyOldIron
08-16-2006, 09:19 AM
There are many forms of nation-states that are authoritarian and repressive, without being "fascist". Monarchies, communism, theocracies, feudal systems, etc.

Exactly why it is a poor description of them.

Bush's speechmakers will know this (they can't be as slow as the Monkey in Chief). The only reason that I can think of for them using it is entirely rhetorical, to attach the negative connotations fascism (rightly) acquired in the C20th.

Either that or, as Darla says, deflecting the theocratic nature due to the large number of theocrats associated with the Admin.

AnyOldIron
08-16-2006, 09:22 AM
In this case it is your side that ignores what you don't want to see in the actual dictionary in an attempt to define away a suddenly clearly accurate definition...

I presume you are refering to Dixie?

From Oxford University dictionary (the official arbitrator of the language, rather than the simplistic Dictionary.com)

fascism A right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with a totalitarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism. In ancient Rome, the authority of the state was symbolized by the fasces , a bundle of rods bound together (signifying popular unity) with a protruding axe-head (denoting leadership). As such, it was appropriated by Mussolini to label the movement he led to power in Italy in 1922, but was subsequently generalized to cover a whole range of movements in Europe during the inter-war period. These include the National Socialists in ...

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1O86:fas...fid=ency_botnm


fascism
/fashiz’m/

• noun 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/fascism?view=uk

Damocles
08-16-2006, 09:25 AM
No, the suggestion that fascism is defined by their nationalism is incorrect...

We again will look at the dictionary term:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism

fas·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.
1. often Fascism
a. 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.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

I have bolded and italicized the word that shows that this assumption that nationalism is the only defining factor and is ALWAYS present in fascism is a mistaken assumption....

Read again: typically...

This word does NOT mean ALWAYS...

Then read the second accepted definition (second definition means it is the second-most accepted contextual definition of the word the how it is used part of the thing...) and we will find that the terminology actually fits them well. Especially if you take into account that they realized that similarities do not make something the same and hence they created a new term...

It is truly hypocritical to redefine a word to fit your argument when speaking of actual accuracy of definition. It is laughable. You are on the wrong side of this one... I know you hate to admit that you made a mistake on your assumption of definition, but you have.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-16-2006, 09:29 AM
I know retard, it is this weak rhetorical terminology I am arguing about.


And not very well. You can't even show where "fascism" is defined the way you need for it to be, to make your point. You certainly haven't demonstrated how radical Islamic fundamentalists are not fascist.

It is an attempt to conjoin the two words Islamic and Fascist.

Not an attempt, it is indeed a joining of two words. Both words have independent specific meaning, and therefore, can't be individually ascribed to the conjoined word, this would nullify the purpose of joining them. You can't say a "waterpark" is not a park because it doesn't have benches and pigeons. I will also add, these people are more "fascist" than they are truly Islamic, they have so perverted the religion of Islam, the word simply doesn't apply to their beliefs in this manifestation.

It is this that doesn't fit.

You've not demonstrated this.

These theocrats aren't nationalist in any way, they reject the notion of the nation-state. Neither are they interested in economic issues.

Yes, they most certainly are "nationalist" if you consider their warped ideology of Islam to be their "nation." It's a matter of perception, and aside from this, fascism doesn't require a traditional nationalist element, or nationalism at all, nor does it require an amalgamation of state and commerce for the enhancement of the nation state.

Their sole intent is to create a theocracy.

Yes, a FASCIST theocracy... hence the name; ISLAMOFASCIST!

AnyOldIron
08-16-2006, 09:35 AM
You are using dictionary.com as your source...lol The most simplisitic dictionary available? Compare that with the Oxford University dictionary.

By your method of definitions, a cat can be described as a dog.

A dog shares many of the characteristics of a cat, it has fur, claws and a tail.

But the defining charcteristics are different.

Same with this situation.

Being authoritarian, oppressive, dictatorial and expansionist doesn't define you as fascist because they are characteristics of other ideologies, Soviet Communism, Monarchism etc etc.

What differentiates fascism from these is the nationalistic tendencies involved. These tendencies aren't characterised in ideologies such as monarchism, communism, theocracy etc.

And I am not 'redefining the word'. The definitions compared are from:

a. The most simplistic dictionary on the net. and
b. The standard dictionary of the English language, and it's political dictionary arm.

[/B]

Damocles
08-16-2006, 09:44 AM
I am using it to show that a new colloquialism can be supported. You are the one ignoring an actual dictionary attempting to seek out one that agrees with you without regard to realistic understandings...

I used a dictionary, one that uses Webster's as a source, you prefer to ignore it because it doesn't fit with your preconceived notions of what you want a word to mean.

You must be embarrassed. I know I would be if I were in your position attempting to say that etymology for a new colloquialism isn't definsible because it isn't exactly the same as what you want it to mean, then finding out that the definition you were using was inaccurate to begin with...

The new term does not have to match perfectly with any specific definition of a current term. If it did a new term would be unnecessary and redundant. In fact, a new term simply has to meet a new definition, the one that it is supposed to define.

You began from a position of weakness...

That of attempting to say a new word must match perfectly definitions of another word.. That's a rubbish argument and you know it.

Then later we find out the definition you attempt to apply doesn't even perfectly match the definition that you want it to.

Dixie has owned you. You must be embarrassed.

AnyOldIron
08-16-2006, 09:45 AM
You can't even show where "fascism" is defined the way you need for it to be, to make your point.

Yes, I have.

The Oxford Dictionary and it's political arm. Read the thread numbnuts.

You've not demonstrated this.

I have, in detail, at least four times... Once more for the slow kid...


Being authoritarian, oppressive, dictatorial and expansionist doesn't define you as fascist because they are characteristics of other ideologies, Soviet Communism, Monarchism etc etc.

What differentiates fascism from these is the nationalistic tendencies involved. These tendencies aren't characterised in ideologies such as monarchism, communism, theocracy etc.

Yes, they most certainly are "nationalist" if you consider their warped ideology of Islam to be their "nation."

You can call a cat a fish but it won't swim.

You don't even know what a nation-state is. Fuck's sake Dixie, go back to school.

A religion is not a nation and you cannot define a religion as a nation state.

They are theocrats, they have no interest in the notion of the nation state.


It's a matter of perception, and aside from this, fascism doesn't require a traditional nationalist element, or nationalism

It isn't a matter of perception, or rather perspective. You can play semantics and call Islam a nation-state but that doesn't make it so.

A nationalist element is the defining quality that seperates fascism from other authoritarian, oppressive and dictatorial ideology.

Yes, a FASCIST theocracy... hence the name; ISLAMOFASCIST!

Damn you are slow. It isn't fascist, unless you redefine the term nation-state to mean religion.

Socrates would be spinning in his grave listening to you Dixie.

Cypress
08-16-2006, 10:00 AM
A right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with a totalitarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism.

"A right-wing nationalist ideology or movement"

There's nothing remotely "nationalist" about the al qaeda movement. Its the opposite - entirely pan-nationalist

AnyOldIron
08-16-2006, 10:00 AM
I am using it to show that a new colloquialism can be supported.

It isn't supported. The argument that these people are fascist revolves around the notion that they are authoritarian, oppressive, dictatorial and expansionist. (and now Dixie's notion that a religion can be deemed a nation state)

These characteristics aren't fascistic in themselves, they are shared by Monarchies, Soviet Communism, Theocracies etc etc.

What differentiates these ideologies from fascism is fascism's element of nationalism (that means the supremecy of the nation state).

That isn't found with the people we are discussing. They have no interest in the nation state, they over-ride the nation state with the notion of a theocratic empire.

This negates the notion that they are fascist.

You can say any missplaced term is 'colloquial', but in the realm of politics we have no room for colloqualisms.

We need Socratic clarity in definition.

used a dictionary, one that uses Webster's as a source, you prefer to ignore it because it doesn't fit with your preconceived notions of what you want a word to mean.

I gave you the definition from the Oxford dictionary and from the Oxford political dictionary... and you gave me dictionary.com. Roflmao!

You must be embarrassed. I know I would be if I were in your position attempting to say that etymology for a new colloquialism isn't definsible because it isn't exactly the same as what you want it to mean,

Have you, like Dixie, taken up the debating tactic of simply ignoring what the other poster has written and then declaring yourself champion?

It doesn't fit with the dictionary definition that is used as standard for the English language. Not Dictionary.com, the simplistic child's dictionary.

The new term does not have to match perfectly with any specific definition of a current term. If it did a new term would be unnecessary and redundant. In fact, a new term simply has to meet a new definition, the one that it is supposed to define.

It has to accurately define what is is symbolising. You have simply ignored what I have written explaining why it doesn't define it accurately.

That of attempting to say a new word must match perfectly definitions of another word.. That's a rubbish argument and you know it.

Mate, you haven't got an argument, aside from saying 'It's a new word, we can do what we like.'

A term must define what it symbolises. Islamofascism doesn't. I have explained why in this thread. Read it.

Dixie has owned you. You must be embarrassed.

A weak debating tactic. Ignore your opponents argument (which you have done. You haven't ONCE addressed my argument, you have merely stated that it is a new word and that the definitions of it's contributary words have no meaning. You haven't addressed once the common characteristics shared with other ideologies that you are attributing to 'Islamicfascism') and declare yourself the winner.

Dixie hasn't owned me, he has used his usual weak debating tactics... ignore opponents posts (as have you) and repeated his statement ad nausium.

Please, read through the posts again.

I know this is difficult stuff to comprehend but a little effort would be appreciated.

Damocles
08-16-2006, 10:06 AM
Once again, if you apply that terminology of "nationalism" to the religion itself it does match rather well.

Remembering that etymology of new colloquialisms never is perfectly matching, if it was no new word would be created, we can see how this can fit into and why a new word was created at the same time.

It is silly to say, "This word here that is different than that word doesn't match this other word's definition exactly so it cannot be useful!"

It actually begins to make me laugh. It becomes more and more like another argument about 1/3...

Damocles
08-16-2006, 10:24 AM
I am using it to show that a new colloquialism can be supported.

It isn't supported. The argument that these people are fascist revolves around the notion that they are authoritarian, oppressive, dictatorial and expansionist. (and now Dixie's notion that a religion can be deemed a nation state).

It can when the religion itelf is a political movement. Where the ideation regards the leader of the church as the only leader discounting all secular government and replacing them with that leader. It is a political movement. A right-wing one...



These characteristics aren't fascistic in themselves, they are shared by Monarchies, Soviet Communism, Theocracies etc etc.


But not quite as right-winged as this particular movement... fascism is more defensible than these others when faced with that tidbit...




What differentiates these ideologies from fascism is fascism's element of nationalism (that means the supremecy of the nation state).


Which, according to the definition is "typical" not "always present"... That you don't want to recognize that doesn't change that it really is there.



That isn't found with the people we are discussing. They have no interest in the nation state, they over-ride the nation state with the notion of a theocratic empire.


They wish to create a new nation-state with their religious leader as the sole government.



This negates the notion that they are fascist.


It does not. The actual definition does not support that nationalism is the sole defining factor of fascism.



You can say any missplaced term is 'colloquial', but in the realm of politics we have no room for colloqualisms.


Bullpucky, colloquialisms are used in every language everywhere. They are part of language. I have not misplaced or misused the term. In this case one portion of the nation appears to use the term regularly another does not, this is a colloquialism...



We need Socratic clarity in definition.

used a dictionary, one that uses Webster's as a source, you prefer to ignore it because it doesn't fit with your preconceived notions of what you want a word to mean.

I gave you the definition from the Oxford dictionary and from the Oxford political dictionary... and you gave me dictionary.com. Roflmao!


Right, specifically to term a new word with. Etymology of new words never is defined strictly by the definition of another word. It is preposterous to say that you can determine the definition of one word as worthless because it doesn't match the definition of another word exactly and perfectly.

If it did there would be no reason for the creation of the new word.... This is particularly the most indefinsible position I have ever seen you take.

One word doesn't exactly match the definition of another and therefore it cannot be a word? Totally and laughably preposterous.



You must be embarrassed. I know I would be if I were in your position attempting to say that etymology for a new colloquialism isn't definsible because it isn't exactly the same as what you want it to mean,

Have you, like Dixie, taken up the debating tactic of simply ignoring what the other poster has written and then declaring yourself champion?


No, I have specifically pointed out to you where you have gone astray and why I would be embarrassed if I were you. You have, however pretty much done what you say here.



It doesn't fit with the dictionary definition that is used as standard for the English language. Not Dictionary.com, the simplistic child's dictionary.


The new word doesn't fit exactly the definition of another word in the OED? Well, DUH! It's because this word is not that other word! You keep trying to make it that other word, and the whole point is that it is not that word and hence the need for the new terminology.




The new term does not have to match perfectly with any specific definition of a current term. If it did a new term would be unnecessary and redundant. In fact, a new term simply has to meet a new definition, the one that it is supposed to define.

It has to accurately define what is is symbolising. You have simply ignored what I have written explaining why it doesn't define it accurately.


Rubbish, I have pointed out how it does fit, it is you who ignore my points and keep repeating the OED definition of a different word to use to define this one. This is a preposterous argument based solely on what you want the new word to mean, not what it was used to describe.....



That of attempting to say a new word must match perfectly definitions of another word.. That's a rubbish argument and you know it.

Mate, you haven't got an argument, aside from saying 'It's a new word, we can do what we like.'

A term must define what it symbolises. Islamofascism doesn't. I have explained why in this thread. Read it.


We have showed repeatedly that the new term does define what it was meant to and why. So far all you have is that it doesn't perfectly match the definition of a different word! All you keep doing is repeating that it isn't "nationalist" enough.

We have shown:
1. How it could be considered nationalistic if viewed from a different perspective, while recognizing that it is different hence the need to coin the new phrase.
2. How it can apply with secondary as well as primary definitions in a dictionary...
3. How you have agreed with another's usage of that other dictionary before in another thread....
4. How new words do not match definitions exactly with another word, hence the reason they are a DIFFERENT WORD.....

So, go ahead and once again repeat that the OED's very first definition doesn't match what I have stated.... It will only be reiterating an embarrassing position where you argue that this word isn't the same as another....

Make fun of the term, laugh at people who use it, call them christofascists... I'll support you in that. But arguing that this words etymology isn't pure enough is simply laughable.




Dixie has owned you. You must be embarrassed.

A weak debating tactic. Ignore your opponents argument (which you have done. You haven't ONCE addressed my argument, you have merely stated that it is a new word and that the definitions of it's contributary words have no meaning. You haven't addressed once the common characteristics shared with other ideologies that you are attributing to 'Islamicfascism') and declare yourself the winner.


Bullpucky, this is once again the repetition fallacy... I won't even bother cutting and pasting my previous response to this "you haven't ONCE addressed" rubbish from previous in this very post....




Dixie hasn't owned me, he has used his usual weak debating tactics... ignore opponents posts (as have you) and repeated his statement ad nausium.


And again, the repetition fallacy is used.... I again will not bother cutting and pasting my previous response...



Please, read through the posts again.

I know this is difficult stuff to comprehend but a little effort would be appreciated.

Yes, follow your own advise...

Since this is again a reiteration of the same repitition fallacy you have used three times before in this same post I will once again give my standard response....

I will not bother cutting and pasting... blah, blah...

AnyOldIron
08-16-2006, 10:24 AM
Once again, if you apply that terminology of "nationalism" to the religion itself it does match rather well.

How???? Nationalism refers to the nation state. A religion isn't a nation state. Can you not tell the difference between a religion and a nation state?

Remembering that etymology of new colloquialisms never is perfectly matching, if it was no new word would be created, we can see how this can fit into and why a new word was created at the same time.

What? No new word would be created? Rubbish. An accurate word would be created, and if it is a combination term, the two contributory words must at least refer to the entity it symbolises.

Islamic theocrats accurately describes these people. Islamic fascists doesn't.

I have explained why ad nausium. Please read the thread.

It actually begins to make me laugh. It becomes more and more like another argument about 1/3...

Yeah ok. Here's a wacky idea. Why don't you address the points I've brought up, about the characteristics of fascism and the characteristics of these theocrats, instead of just crowing on the sidelines and insisting that you can create any term you goddam like, irrespective of the meaning of words...

AnyOldIron
08-16-2006, 10:27 AM
I have finished work now. I will resume this tomorrow.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-16-2006, 10:27 AM
A term must define what it symbolises. Islamofascism doesn't. I have explained why in this thread. Read it.

Yes it does, YOU read the thread! It has been explained to you, how you are woefully inaccurate and wrong, and yet you stubbornly insist you've made your point, when you simply haven't. We can go back and forth with this "I'm right and your wrong because I say so" shit all day, it doesn't fly. Your completely entitled to have your own wrongheaded opinion on this, no one is arguing that you can't, but to continue to just arrogantly insist that YOU are the only one who can decide what a word means, is just ridiculous.

I am not calling a dog a fish, or making a cat a dog, by stating that radical Islamic fundamentalists, who seek to form a theocratic Caliphate across the middle east, are "fascist" in nature. They most certainly are, by every definition of the word, including your own.

OrnotBitwise
08-16-2006, 10:29 AM
Once again, if you apply that terminology of "nationalism" to the religion itself it does match rather well.

Remembering that etymology of new colloquialisms never is perfectly matching, if it was no new word would be created, we can see how this can fit into and why a new word was created at the same time.

It is silly to say, "This word here that is different than that word doesn't match this other word's definition exactly so it cannot be useful!"

It actually begins to make me laugh. It becomes more and more like another argument about 1/3...No, it isn't. It's about how much latitude you grant to new colloquialisms before you point out how ridiculous they are.

And no, I'm not even distantly related to Edwin Newman. Strictly speaking, I hate his guts, the sanctimonious prick.

Colloquialisms aren't, by their very nature, well defined. This is true. They will either make their way into the language or they won't. Arguing about it beforehand is rather pointless.

However colorful they may be, they're frequently nonsensical in their derivation. When was the last time you heard someone say "groovy" though? Fashion tends to cast them aside as quickly as it takes them up.

Will people 30 years from now be talking about "Islamofascism?" I sincerely doubt it. Not when other, more appropriate -- and less clumsy -- words already exist.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-16-2006, 10:30 AM
Right, specifically to term a new word with. Etymology of new words never is defined strictly by the definition of another word. It is preposterous to say that you can determine the definition of one word as worthless because it doesn't match the definition of another word exactly and perfectly.

If it did there would be no reason for the creation of the new word.... This is particularly the most indefinsible position I have ever seen you take.

Excellent point Damo! One that seems to be flying comfortably over Arnold's head.

Damocles
08-16-2006, 10:31 AM
Once again, if you apply that terminology of "nationalism" to the religion itself it does match rather well.

How???? Nationalism refers to the nation state. A religion isn't a nation state. Can you not tell the difference between a religion and a nation state?


In their particular version of this religion the religion takes the place of the nation-state as the political power of a new nation.... Ignoring the political portion of their stance doesn't make it unrealistic in application.



Remembering that etymology of new colloquialisms never is perfectly matching, if it was no new word would be created, we can see how this can fit into and why a new word was created at the same time.

What? No new word would be created? Rubbish. An accurate word would be created, and if it is a combination term, the two contributory words must at least refer to the entity it symbolises.


Which we have shown that it does. You have simply taken only one definition from a dictionary and attempted to say that this word cannot mean what it has been defined as because it doesn't perfectly match with another word. It is preposterous.



Islamic theocrats accurately describes these people. Islamic fascists doesn't.

I have explained why ad nausium. Please read the thread.


As I have explained why it does ad nauseam. Simply ignoring my points and the fact that I have directly answered your point with a counterpoint doesn't magically make that go away, it just makes you even more repetitive in your fallacy....



It actually begins to make me laugh. It becomes more and more like another argument about 1/3...

Yeah ok. Here's a wacky idea. Why don't you address the points I've brought up, about the characteristics of fascism and the characteristics of these theocrats, instead of just crowing on the sidelines and insisting that you can create any term you goddam like, irrespective of the meaning of words...

LOL. A reiteration once again of the repetition fallacy....

I have actually addressed your points with counterpoints which are ignored to repeat this dribble.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-16-2006, 10:37 AM
Can you not tell the difference between a religion and a nation state?

Islamofascists are not a religious entity, they have perverted Islam, thus they do not represent a theocratic ideology, rather a barbaric and evil ideology of hate and racism. They seek to authoritatively force this belief onto the rest of the world through terrorism, which makes them clearly "fascist" in the second most used connotation of the word. When you replace traditional "nationalism" with the warped and twisted ideological concepts of radical Islamics, the "nation" becomes the "ideology" in the context you are using. Not that "nationalism" is even required for something to be "fascist."

AnyOldIron
08-17-2006, 04:12 AM
Islamofascists are not a religious entity, they have perverted Islam, thus they do not represent a theocratic ideology,

You are so full of it... Sophism that is.

Even if some consider these people to have perverted Islam, it is still a religion.

Catholics believed Protestants perverted Christianity, does that not make Protestants religious?

Your logic is shocking Dixie, shocking in its non-existence.

When you replace traditional "nationalism" with the warped and twisted ideological concepts of radical Islamics, the "nation" becomes the "ideology" in the context you are using. Not that "nationalism" is even required for something to be "fascist."

See the 'misnomer thread' where I explain for slow kids like you why nationalism is required for fascism and why you cannot state a religion is a nation state.

Damocles
08-17-2006, 06:19 AM
Yes, see the "misnomer thread"....

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-17-2006, 10:23 AM
Even if some consider these people to have perverted Islam, it is still a religion.

Catholics believed Protestants perverted Christianity, does that not make Protestants religious?

Your logic is shocking Dixie, shocking in its non-existence.

My logic is, just because some group perverts a religion and uses it as an excuse for their unacceptable behavior, doesn't mean they are a valid part of that religious entity. The KKK used Christianity to perpetrate lynchings on black people, but few would attempt to argue these people were truly Christian. Is the KKK a "theocratic Christian group?" or something else? You tell me!

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-17-2006, 10:29 AM
See the 'misnomer thread' where I explain for slow kids like you why nationalism is required for fascism and why you cannot state a religion is a nation state.

Frankly, I am tired of chasing you all over the board to address your ill-informed opinions, of which I've already owned you on. Nationalism is not required of any and all fascism, it's very clearly stated in the definition presented, and you have not acknowledged the fact, but that doesn't change reality. That said, Islamofascism certainly does contain an element of nationalism, they seek to form an Islamic Caliphate with a Caliph leader, this constitutes the "required" nationalist objectives of fascism, by your definition. Why won't you acknowledge this fact?

AnyOldIron
08-18-2006, 05:19 AM
Frankly, I am tired of chasing you all over the board to address your ill-informed opinions, of which I've already owned you on.

Dixie, you couldn't own yourself....

Nationalism is not required of any and all fascism, it's very clearly stated in the definition presented,

No, all three definitions, from the Oxford University dictionary, Oxford Political dictionary and Dictionary.com state nationalism is a characteristic of fascism.

This is because the characteristics you are attempting to attribute to fascism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorial centralised control and expansionism can also be attributed to other ideologies, such as Soviet Communism, Monarchism and theocracy.

You, in your ownership..lol, haven't addressed this point.

That said, Islamofascism certainly does contain an element of nationalism, they seek to form an Islamic Caliphate with a Caliph leader, this constitutes the "required" nationalist objectives of fascism, by your definition. Why won't you acknowledge this fact?

Again, something you are claiming with no substance except by way of mixing semantics.

A centralised dictatorial empire isn't evidence of nationalism. Soviet Communism fits this description and that was in no way nationalistic, it was internationalist.

Nationalism, as the name indicates refers to the nation state. An empire doesn't automatically equate to a nation state. Nationalism is the ideology where all is directed towards the promotion of the nation state. Theocracies such as the Khalifate are ideologies where all is directed towards the promotion of religious doctrine.

So before making a little hill of dust, standing on top of it and declaring yourself 'king of the castle' why don't you address these points?

uscitizen
08-18-2006, 07:17 AM
See the 'misnomer thread' where I explain for slow kids like you why nationalism is required for fascism
//

So the rise in nationalistic sentiment in the USA sets the stage for Fascism ?

Hermes Thoth
03-31-2007, 08:01 AM
Israel should have gone is with ground forces and special ops to confront Hezbollah directly.
Jewish lives are too precious, they'll figure out a way to get christians to do it for them.

uscitizen
04-01-2007, 02:18 AM
Jewish lives are too precious, they'll figure out a way to get christians to do it for them.

They are great capitalists who excel at getting others to do their work for them.
Bush and his minions have been eager servants of Israel.

Hermes Thoth
04-02-2007, 09:08 AM
They are great capitalists who excel at getting others to do their work for them.
Bush and his minions have been eager servants of Israel.

Again, framing something as an economic argument does relieve it of it's moral content.

Cancel7
04-02-2007, 09:18 AM
Jewish lives are too precious, they'll figure out a way to get christians to do it for them.

Again, you have a very narrow view of events and view them through your own bigotry.

There are a lot of people who believe that the Israeli/Lebanon war, was a proxy war fought between the US and Iran. And that it was the US who wanted the war and encouraged Israel to invade, in order to weaken Hezbollah so that when bush went into Iran, they would not be a significant factor.

Just because Hezbollah kicked their asses, and it backfired as much of the neocon nonsense is apt to do, does not mean that was not the intent.

Hermes Thoth
04-02-2007, 09:22 AM
Again, you have a very narrow view of events and view them through your own bigotry.

There are a lot of people who believe that the Israeli/Lebanon war, was a proxy war fought between the US and Iran. And that it was the US who wanted the war and encouraged Israel to invade, in order to weaken Hezbollah so that when bush went into Iran, they would not be a significant factor.

Just because Hezbollah kicked their asses, and it backfired as much of the neocon nonsense is apt to do, does not mean that was not the intent.

That's right, No jews want israel. They're just having their strings pulled by americans. Or is it the other way around?

Cancel7
04-02-2007, 09:28 AM
That's right, No jews want israel. They're just having their strings pulled by americans. Or is it the other way around?

It all depends on how you view the world. Not being a jew-hater, I view it quite differently than you do. And I read a lot of jewish intellectuals whom I have the upmost respect for (and when I use the word intellectual, I use it in the European sense, I mean academists and historians who hold PhD's and are peer-reviewed), who believe that the Israeli invasion of Lebanon was a big mistake and put Israeli security at further risk.

You listen to only one side, the right-wing, "what is good for Israel" viewpoint that is so prevalent here in America, but only because, those are the only jewish voices gaining media attention. They are far from the majority.

Hermes Thoth
04-02-2007, 10:53 AM
It all depends on how you view the world. Not being a jew-hater, I view it quite differently than you do. And I read a lot of jewish intellectuals whom I have the upmost respect for (and when I use the word intellectual, I use it in the European sense, I mean academists and historians who hold PhD's and are peer-reviewed), who believe that the Israeli invasion of Lebanon was a big mistake and put Israeli security at further risk.

You listen to only one side, the right-wing, "what is good for Israel" viewpoint that is so prevalent here in America, but only because, those are the only jewish voices gaining media attention. They are far from the majority.

But they are concerned with israeli security. They don't say " the whole of zionism is being forced upon jews by anxious christians" do they? there is no meaningfull dissent on israeli policy from left or right.

Cancel7
04-02-2007, 11:19 AM
But they are concerned with israeli security. They don't say " the whole of zionism is being forced upon jews by anxious christians" do they? there is no meaningfull dissent on israeli policy from left or right.

Yes, there is.

Try reading something other than "The Jew World Order" weekly conspiracy pamphlet, and open your eyes.

Hermes Thoth
04-02-2007, 11:20 AM
Yes, there is.

Try reading something other than "The Jew World Order" weekly conspiracy pamphlet, and open your eyes.

So there is a jewish anti-israel lobby? Sounds like a good show. Can you get me tickets?

Cancel7
04-02-2007, 11:23 AM
So there is a jewish anti-israel lobby? Sounds like a good show. Can you get me tickets?

Ohhh. I see. You are either with Israel, or you are against Israel.

Well, under that definition, there probably are no jews you would find acceptable, nor, many people really. I'm not anti-Israel. I'm not pro-Israel either. But, if I'm not anti-Israel, then I must be pro-Israel, because I am either for you, or I'm with them.

Right. You know, I feel like I've heard this sort of thinking, somewhere... but I can't recall the details.