PDA

View Full Version : On The 'Islamofascism' Misnomer...



AnyOldIron
08-17-2006, 03:30 AM
The arguments so far in defense of the misnomer 'islamofascism'....

1. The term is a colloquialism, a newly coined term, and thus doesn't have to accurately derived from its components. We can use whatever terminology we goddam like. Colloquialisms are acceptable forms of language.

Firstly, in political / philosophical debate there is no room for ambigious colloquialisms. Anyone who doubts or disputes this should read the life of Socrates. Clarity of communication, including in definition of terms, is vitally important to political / philosophical debate.

Secondly, colloquialisms should at least best describe what they are symbolising, particularly in conjoined words.

2. 'Islamofascist' does best describe the people it is intended to symbolise. These people exhibit the characteristics of fascism.

The best way decide this is to break the new term into its component parts. As mentioned in the first part, clarity and accuracy of terms matters, especially with new terminology.

Islamo - Conjoining word to indicate those of the Muslim faith. Fits perfectly.

Fascism - To decide whether fascist fits we must look at the definition of fascism and see if it best describes the characteristics of these people.

Let's take the definitions from two sources.

Firstly Oxford University dictionaries:

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

Secndly, Dictionary.com:

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.

The common factors in all these definitions are:

Authoritarian
Totalitarian
Hierarchical Structure
Nationalistic
Dictatorial

These characteristics are found in all definitions.

So do the people we are describing display these characteristics?

They are certainly authoritarian, totalitarian, hierarchical and dictatorial. But is this enough to deem them fascists? Are these characteristics exclusive to fascism?

No. They could as easily be describing other ideologies, Soviet Communism, Monarchism, Theocracy etc etc.

The characteristic that differentiates between other authoritarian, totalitarian, hierarchical and dictatorial ideologies and fascism is the nationalist element. All other characteristics are characteristics that could apply to many other ideologies.

Without the nationalist element it is hardly the best description to use the term fascist.

3. The nationalist element doesn't matter and besides, this form of Islam can be seen to be nationalistic as it is a warped form of Islam.

Well, no, they can't be seen as nationalistic. The essential element in nationalism is the nation state. The nation state is paramount to nationalism. A religion, no matter how warped or distateful to our moral code isn't a nation state, it is still a religion. That is a simple fact.

You could say that if you replace the nationalist element with the religious ideology of these people, you have fascism. Again, no you don't. If you remove the nationalist element, you are left with an authoritarian, totalitarian, hierarchical and dictatorial based on religious grounds. This, ladies and gentlemen, is theocracy, not fascism.



So, in conclusion. Creating words without reference to their etymological origins isn't good in political / philosophical debate and any new word has to accurately and best describe what it is symbolising.

Describing these people as fascist is reliant upon them fitting the criteria for fascism. Possessing some of the characteristics is not enough, as these are shared in common with other ideologies and so makes fascism not an accurate term to describe them.

Nationalism differentiates fascism from these other ideologies and as such it is essential that an element of nationalism is involved, else they could be as well described by other ideological terms.

Religious beliefs aren't nationalism, as it is fundamental that with nationalism the notion of the nation state is involved. Religious extremists that have no interest in the notion of the nation state aren't nationalistic. That these people wish to unite the world under their theocratic ideologies is clear evidence that the nation state is irrelevant to them.

Damocles
08-17-2006, 06:15 AM
Selective selection of definition disregards other definitions within that same dictionary. Don't pretend that there are not more than one. Also attempting to make a new word fit within the definition of another word is worthless considering it isn't that other word....

You can keep repeating it, and I can keep making the same counterpoint, but your "it has to mean exactly this to be valid" argument is weakened by the fact other conglomerate words created by others do nothing of the sort, and have been given as examples earlier but ignored by someone who clearly doesn't want to admit historical reference. Your position is weak, your argument is the repetition fallacy....

The main thrust of your argument is that this word does not exactly fit this other word and therefore cannot be used. It is a laughable argument based solely on "feeling" not the reality of other conglomerate words presented as example earlier. In each of those examples the word took parts of a definition of each of the past words, not the whole of them, and was able to come up with wonderfully descriptive new words based on that congolmeration. But heck, it's all good, we can't use "airship" because they don't float on water (the first defition of ship in the dictionary... we can't use any others according to the ultimate wisdom of AOI and his Etymology requirements on conglomerate word creation...)

This is taken out of context with the other argument so you can pick and choose what counterpoints to answer in an attempt to ignore other counterpoints and it underscores the weakness in your argument by what you attempted not to present...

Etymology has never been an exactly perfect science, especially in newly formed words... This attempt to ignore the past, present an argument that a new word must match an old definition exactly, while ignoring secondary and tertiary definitions in an attempt to make it "not fit" notwithstanding you have simply not presented enough to show that this new word doesn't fit "enough". It doesn't fit "enough" to suit you, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a pretty good descriptive phrase that is entering the language regardless of your meaningless objection of how it doesn't exactly match what you want it to.

maineman
08-17-2006, 06:19 AM
the point that seems to be overlooked here is this word was "newly formed" not so much for its accuracy in describing groups of people, but for the ability to create the desired emotional response to those people. You two can argue the etymological subtleties until the cows come home...but we all know that this word is being used for one primary purpose, and "accuracy and precision of communication" is not it.

Damocles
08-17-2006, 06:30 AM
Regardless of that mm, the attempt to say it isn't valid because it isn't perfectly within the definition of another word is simply whiney silopsism...

It is an attempt to sound smart without regard to historical as well as presented evidence... Especially when it entails actually ignoring defitions within the same dictionary that you are using that actually DO match...

It is a whiney little kid argument of "Hey! It doesn't mean what I WANT it to!"... I can picture you guys stomping your feet with clenched fists... Especially when it was shown that dictionary definitions actually do match it enough to make it more valid than other presented conglomerate words of the past....

AnyOldIron
08-17-2006, 06:31 AM
Selective selection of definition disregards other definitions within that same dictionary. Don't pretend that there are not more than one. Also attempting to make a new word fit within the definition of another word is worthless considering it isn't that other word....

You can keep repeating it, and I can keep making the same counterpoint, but your "it has to mean exactly this to be valid" argument is weakened by the fact other conglomerate words created by others do nothing and have been given as examples earlier. Your position is weak, your argument is the repetition fallacy....

I repeat the points because you aren't addressing the points I made. You are simply saying etymology isn't an exact science and it doesn't matter if the term doesn't describe the entity, nor if it the best description.

Do you disagree that any conglomerated word must at least be the best description of the entity it symbolises and that the meaning of the contributory words must describe what is being symbolised?

Else why not call them Islamoconservatives? They share some characteristics with conservatives after all. (Not a SM, analogy)

Do you disagree with the defining characteristics for fascism that I hightlighted from both sets of definitions, ie:

Authoritarian
Totalitarian
Hierarchical Structure
Nationalistic
Dictatorial

These are all characteristics defined in both dictionaries.

Do you disagree that if you remove nationalism from the equation, and are left with authoritarian, totalitarian, hierarchical structure and dictatorial, that these characteristics are also found in other ideologies, such as Soviet Communism, Monarchism, Theocracy etc?

Do you not see then that without the nationalist element it isn't possible to define as fascist, as the remaining characteristics are evident elsewhere?

Do you believe that a religion is a nation-state and if so, how?

This isn't a matter that the 'term' doesn't exactly fit the description of these people, it isn't even close, and there is already a far better term for them.

Simple as that.

AnyOldIron
08-17-2006, 06:37 AM
Regardless of that mm, the attempt to say it isn't valid because it isn't perfectly within the definition of another word is simply whiney silopsism...

It isn't a matter of whether it PERFECTLY fits, it is a matter of whether it fits at all, and whether it the best term to describe the entity.

It neither fits nor is the best description of the entity.

Damocles
08-17-2006, 06:39 AM
Rubbish, I have specifically presented other words that use secondary and tertiary defitions when "matching" with another word in the new conglomeration. Saying that I don't present counterpoint doesn't make it true. Ignoring historical reference doesn't make you "more right" it just makes you look more childish...



Do you disagree that any conglomerated word must at least be the best description of the entity it symbolises and that the meaning of the contributory words must describe what is being symbolised?


I do, and have presented myriad times how this word does encompass definitions of the previous words and that it does even better than previous historically accepted conglomerate words....

Pretending I didn't answer you once again doesn't make it so, it just makes your argument the repetition fallacy.




Else why not call them Islamoconservatives? They share some characteristics with conservatives after all. (Not a SM, analogy)

One could, and would, if the characteristics they share with conservatives were the ones that were being underscored....

Damocles
08-17-2006, 06:40 AM
Regardless of that mm, the attempt to say it isn't valid because it isn't perfectly within the definition of another word is simply whiney silopsism...

It isn't a matter of whether it PERFECTLY fits, it is a matter of whether it fits at all, and whether it the best term to describe the entity.

It neither fits nor is the best description of the entity.


Rubbish, we have presented how it does fit. We have shown how it is descriptive in the first definition, in the second and in the tertiary definition. This is far more descriptive than say "airship" was...

This is such total hogwash.

Damocles
08-17-2006, 06:42 AM
Each time you repeat it, and attempt to hide how it has been answered by attempting to ignore presented argument by changing threads to cover your lack, it makes you appear even more like a child thrusting his fists down and stomping....

"But, but, but.... IT doesn't exactly match THIS one definition that I present even though it practically matches every other definition that YOU present!"...

maineman
08-17-2006, 06:46 AM
Regardless of that mm, the attempt to say it isn't valid because it isn't perfectly within the definition of another word is simply whiney silopsism...

It is an attempt to sound smart without regard to historical as well as presented evidence... Especially when it entails actually ignoring defitions within the same dictionary that you are using that actually DO match...

It is a whiney little kid argument of "Hey! It doesn't mean what I WANT it to!"... I can picture you guys stomping your feet with clenched fists... Especially when it was shown that dictionary definitions actually do match it enough to make it more valid than other presented conglomerate words of the past....

I don't think that islamofascist is any more valid a term than sand nigger.

both are designed to create anger and fear in a target audience.

but if you want to use it...go for it.... I know why you do...and that is why I won't.

Damocles
08-17-2006, 06:49 AM
I've already told you that I don't use the word. I am simply arguing etymology. Words are a tool, this one is pretty precise in its design and it works. The attempt to say it isn't valid because it doesn't match the first definition in the OED is total rubbish, especially when presented with the fact that the word can be seen as descriptive of that definition at the same time it actually does match the secondary and tertiary definitions of the word in question....

If you want to argue whether it is appropriate to use the word at all, that actually does belong in a whole new thread....

In this one we argue descriptiveness and definition, in another we can argue the moral value...

Damocles
08-17-2006, 06:52 AM
Personally I would use the term that the muslims who are not terrorist have themselves coined...

Islamists

maineman
08-17-2006, 06:57 AM
is this an etymology bulletin board or a politics bulletin board. the term is DESIGNED to stir emotions and cause fear and distrust. Islamofascist....sand nigger....dune coon....OOOOOOOOO.... scary nasty subhuman people..... let's go kill them!

AnyOldIron
08-17-2006, 06:58 AM
Rubbish, I have specifically presented other words that use secondary and tertiary defitions when "matching" with another word in the new conglomeration. Saying that I don't present counterpoint doesn't make it true. Ignoring historical reference doesn't make you "more right" it just makes you look more childish...

I do, and have presented myriad times how this word does encompass definitions of the previous words and that it does even better than previous historically accepted conglomerate words....

Pretending I didn't answer you once again doesn't make it so, it just makes your argument the repetition fallacy.

Your argument summises to 'the origins of the words used bares no importance to creating a conglomerate word. It doesn't matter if the entity being described doesn't fit the contributing words or is the best description.'

Then why not call them Islamoconservatives? They share some of the criteria for conservatives, obviously not the defining characteristics but who cares? We can define a word however we like.

In political and philosophical debate, accuracy of definition of terms is vitally important. Read up on Socrates if you don't understand the reason why.

We cannot just create conglomerate words without reference to the terms they derive from, it leads to ambiguity.


One could, and would, if the characteristics they share with conservatives were the ones that were being underscored....

The ones underscored? What do you mean by underscored?

We don't call them Islamoconservatives because a. they only share a few characteristics with conservatives, and not the most defining ones and b. there is already a term that accurately describes them... Theocrats.

In creating a term to describe these people, Islamofascism is weak, undescriptive and subordinate to a far better term... theocrats.

Damocles
08-17-2006, 07:00 AM
Right, but this thread is arguing etymology not appropriateness...

Does it present a picture of the meaning they are trying to get across? I present that it does, have shown why I think so, have even shown why and how it actually has a better match than previous conglomerate words... All the while I've been told that it can't mean what they present it to mean....

Now, I agree with you on whether the word should have been used by the President... I'll even agree with why it was created. I also agree that I wouldn't use it and have given the word that I would use and why...

AnyOldIron
08-17-2006, 07:05 AM
Rubbish, we have presented how it does fit. We have shown how it is descriptive in the first definition, in the second and in the tertiary definition. This is far more descriptive than say "airship" was...

It only fits if you

A. Ignore the fact that they only share a few of the characteristics of fascism.
B. Ignore the fact that it is missing the characteristics that differentiate it from other authoritarian, dictatorial and totalitarian ideologies.
C. Ignore the fact that there is already an accurate term for their ideology...theocracy.

The term 'airship' at least is derived from words that define what it is.

Damocles
08-17-2006, 07:09 AM
Rubbish, I have specifically presented other words that use secondary and tertiary defitions when "matching" with another word in the new conglomeration. Saying that I don't present counterpoint doesn't make it true. Ignoring historical reference doesn't make you "more right" it just makes you look more childish...

I do, and have presented myriad times how this word does encompass definitions of the previous words and that it does even better than previous historically accepted conglomerate words....

Pretending I didn't answer you once again doesn't make it so, it just makes your argument the repetition fallacy.

Your argument summises to 'the origins of the words used bares no importance to creating a conglomerate word. It doesn't matter if the entity being described doesn't fit the contributing words or is the best description.'


Rubbish again. I have shown how the original words are descriptive of the terminology and why I think so.



Then why not call them Islamoconservatives? They share some of the criteria for conservatives, obviously not the defining characteristics but who cares? We can define a word however we like.


I already stated that a person wanting to underscore those similarities could and would use that term. This really does underscore that you don't actually read my responses, you assume what they are and simply keep repeating this nonsense because you cannot comprehend my answers as you haven't READ THEM....



In political and philosophical debate, accuracy of definition of terms is vitally important. Read up on Socrates if you don't understand the reason why.


Hence the reason we have presented how these two terms brought together are actually descriptive of the idea presented....




We cannot just create conglomerate words without reference to the terms they derive from, it leads to ambiguity.


Which is why we have used the previous terms and shown how they are descriptive... I have to keep repeating this because, as I have found out, you don't ACTUALLY READ responses and thus have no comprehension of the actual presented ideas that have gone before....



One could, and would, if the characteristics they share with conservatives were the ones that were being underscored....

The ones underscored? What do you mean by underscored?


In the creation of the word they use the terms they believe are descriptive of the ideas they are presenting. They wouldn't use Islamopacifist, they aren't underscoring their "pacifist" nature... (if it existed) they use fascist because they are underscoring the similarities in that word... You know the ones I presented earlier that you have proven you simply haven't read and present no salient argument against.... Those ones.




We don't call them Islamoconservatives because a. they only share a few characteristics with conservatives, and not the most defining ones and b. there is already a term that accurately describes them... Theocrats.


Once again, Theocrats is not accurate enough. I have already mentioned that we are not fighting a war on Theocracy and in fact the US and Britain both support a Theocratic government in exile... Can you figure out which one it is?




In creating a term to describe these people, Islamofascism is weak, undescriptive and subordinate to a far better term... theocrats.
Actually, it is a subset of the "Theocrat" that is underdescriptive... Using solely "theocrat" would present the idea that we are fighting all theocrats and we are not. It is necessary to separate this group from other theocrats... I have already answered this one as well, you simply present another instance where you prove you don't actually read responses you just assume and end up looking the ass because of it.

maineman
08-17-2006, 07:10 AM
from my perspective, all those who continue to use the word ISLAMOFASCIST do so for the purpose of inciting fear and distrust and anger.... it really is nothing more appropriate than calling them sand niggers at a KKK meeting.

I am fine with Islamist.... or Islamic extremist...or Wahabbist... or Islamic theocrat.... I know what those words mean and I feel no need to use made up words when better - REAL -words are more descriptive.

the ulterior motivation for using islamofascist is clear.

AnyOldIron
08-17-2006, 07:11 AM
Does it present a picture of the meaning they are trying to get across?

Depends if the meaning is rhetorical or actual.

If they want to attach the negative connotations fascism rightly gained across the C20th, then the meaning is presented.

If it is meant as an accurate political definition of these people, then it creates ambiguity and is innaccurate.

I present that it does, have shown why I think so, have even shown why and how it actually has a better match than previous conglomerate words... All the while I've been told that it can't mean what they present it to mean....

See my above. If they mean to attach the connotations of the term fascism, then it does.

If it is meant as an accurate term used in political arenas, then it is ambigiuos, innaccurate and subordinate to a term far better suited, theocrats.

Hence, using the term 'Islamofascist' is entirely rhetorical, designed to create pathos.

Damocles
08-17-2006, 07:14 AM
Rubbish, we have presented how it does fit. We have shown how it is descriptive in the first definition, in the second and in the tertiary definition. This is far more descriptive than say "airship" was...

It only fits if you

A. Ignore the fact that they only share a few of the characteristics of fascism.
B. Ignore the fact that it is missing the characteristics that differentiate it from other authoritarian, dictatorial and totalitarian ideologies.
C. Ignore the fact that there is already an accurate term for their ideology...theocracy.


It only doesn't fit if you actually

A. Ignore the secondary and tertiary definitions presented in the same dictionary you used..
B. Ignore the fact in historically presented words created in much the same way this specificity is not present and in fact this word fits more precisely than most.
C. Ignore the fact that theocracy is actually the less accurate term and that I have actually presented why... (Again proving you don't actually read the fricking answers!)



The term 'airship' at least is derived from words that define what it is.


Rubbish. If we go by your requirements, using only the very first definition presented in the OED, it cannot be used because the airship doesn't float on water....

AnyOldIron
08-17-2006, 07:36 AM
I have shown how the original words are descriptive of the terminology and why I think so.

And I have shown how this is wrong and am still waiting for you to address the point.

The characteristics you identified as fascism are shared by many other ideologies. The one that isn't is nationalism. etc etc

Hence the reason we have presented how these two terms brought together are actually descriptive of the idea presented....

And I have replied to that, explaining why the term fascist isn't appropriate, nor is it the best term to describe them.

In the creation of the word they use the terms they believe are descriptive of the ideas they are presenting. They wouldn't use Islamopacifist, they aren't underscoring their "pacifist" nature... (if it existed) they use fascist because they are underscoring the similarities in that word... You know the ones I presented earlier that you have proven you simply haven't read and present no salient argument against.... Those ones.

And I have replied that the similarities these people have with fascism aren't exclusive to fascism and that the exclusive nature, ie nationalism isn't addressed by the ideology of these theocrats.

Attempting to underscore a fascistic nature that isn't there is invalid.

Once again, Theocrats is not accurate enough. I have already mentioned that we are not fighting a war on Theocracy and in fact the US and Britain both support a Theocratic government in exile... Can you figure out which one it is?

Once again, Theocrats is not accurate enough. I have already mentioned that we are not fighting a war on Theocracy and in fact the US and Britain both support a Theocratic government in exile... Can you figure out which one it is?

What? Theocracy is not descriptive enough? lol Just because the US and Uk support a particular theocracy doesn't mean that these people aren't theocrats. What kind of logic is that?

Theocracy is rule through religious doctrine. How does that not describe accurately the intentions of these people. They want a Caliphate, an empire ruled under Islamic doctrine...

Actually, it is a subset of the "Theocrat" that is underdescriptive... I have already answered this one as well, you simply present another instance where you prove you don't actually read responses you just assume and end up looking the ass because of it.

Theocracy isn't underdescriptive.

Rule through religious doctrine is exaclty the aim of AQ et al. Exactly the aim.

They don't want the exhaltation of any nation state, they want rule through religious doctrine.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-17-2006, 07:40 AM
Arnold, you are one stubborn mofo. This is the THIRD thread you've tried to make this same unfounded argument and failed. Do you just not get tired of being faced? Who the hell are you trying to impress? Why do you continue to cling to this invalid argument as if your life depends on it? Why do you continue to abandon the threads where it's been explained and start new ones to blather on with your nonsense? I suppose you think you can just keep repeating your flawed argument until people become tired of responding to you, and that will make you feel like you were correct? Is that the deal?

I am just trying to figure out, why a grown man would go to such lengths to avoid admitting they were mistaken, or their point was invalid. You're not going to force people to stop using the word, you're not going to destroy the meaning of the word, and you can't prevent the word from spreading through the lexicon of everyday conversation. All you can do is sit here daily, posting idiocy, and acting like a two-year-old about it. You were wrong, you've been proven wrong, it's been shown how you were wrong, repeatedly, and now you want to keep insisting you are right, despite everything that has been presented to refute your position. I'm with Damo, that in itself demonstrates desperation.

Bottom line: I need to figure out what to do with your ass, it doesn't match any of my furniture, and it looks awkward sitting here in my living room. I wonder if I could auction your ass off on Ebay? ...probably wouldn't get enough to cover shipping charges. Hey Damo, you wanna take half of the burden here? It's going to be expensive to maintain this ass all by myself!

Damocles
08-17-2006, 07:50 AM
I have shown how the original words are descriptive of the terminology and why I think so.

And I have shown how this is wrong and am still waiting for you to address the point.

The characteristics you identified as fascism are shared by many other ideologies. The one that isn't is nationalism. etc etc


Once again, that really doesn't change that it is descriptive and uses those similarities to create a congolmeration of two words. That you don't like the word is clear, that it is descriptive and why has been shown regardless of your dislike.



Hence the reason we have presented how these two terms brought together are actually descriptive of the idea presented....

And I have replied to that, explaining why the term fascist isn't appropriate, nor is it the best term to describe them.


And I have replied to that, it is however appropriate to what they underscore with the terms they chose... You may not like that they chose these words and the reason they chose them, but they are effective or there wouldn't be such an outcry against the usage of the word. Is it effective? Yes. Does it present the idea that those who use it want? Yes. Is it descriptive? Yes.



In the creation of the word they use the terms they believe are descriptive of the ideas they are presenting. They wouldn't use Islamopacifist, they aren't underscoring their "pacifist" nature... (if it existed) they use fascist because they are underscoring the similarities in that word... You know the ones I presented earlier that you have proven you simply haven't read and present no salient argument against.... Those ones.

And I have replied that the similarities these people have with fascism aren't exclusive to fascism and that the exclusive nature, ie nationalism isn't addressed by the ideology of these theocrats.


And I have shown that many words use terms that are descriptive to more than one term, but you don't argue that they are not valid. That this is a ridiculous argument at its face because there are many terms that have some things in common with other terms. Using this one could argue that Dictator isn't descriptive enough because it shares many characteristics with a Monarch... it's totally rubbish.



Attempting to underscore a fascistic nature that isn't there is invalid.


Ignoring the fact that it directly matches the secondary and tertiary definitions presented in your OED dictionary to say that the "nature isn't there" is not valid. Pretending that those definitions don't exist won't make them go away.




Once again, Theocrats is not accurate enough. I have already mentioned that we are not fighting a war on Theocracy and in fact the US and Britain both support a Theocratic government in exile... Can you figure out which one it is?

What? Theocracy is not descriptive enough? lol Just because the US and Uk support a particular theocracy doesn't mean that these people aren't theocrats. What kind of logic is that?


No, you are being deliberately obtuse here... I mean truly you are acting stupid. I know you are smarter than this.

If one is attempting to describe a specific color of red, one doesn't just use "red" to describe it. It isn't precise enough. This is much the same. Saying only "theocrat" is not precise enough. What type of theocrat are they?

Had Bush used the term "theocrat" it would imply that every theocrat is our enemy and we know this is not the case. This is way too broad of a term...

Now get your head out of your behind and start actually thinking before you type!



Theocracy is rule through religious doctrine. How does that not describe accurately the intentions of these people. They want a Caliphate, an empire ruled under Islamic doctrine...


I didn't say it wasn't descriptive of them, just that it wasn't accurate enough. There are many different types of Theocracy, it needs to be more accurate than that. The term "theocracy" is simply too broad and encompases groups that are not part of this....




Actually, it is a subset of the "Theocrat" that is underdescriptive... I have already answered this one as well, you simply present another instance where you prove you don't actually read responses you just assume and end up looking the ass because of it.

Theocracy isn't underdescriptive.


It is, once again it is a too broad term and paints groups that are not part of this subset.




Rule through religious doctrine is exaclty the aim of AQ et al. Exactly the aim.


And so it is with Tibet... Are they really our enemy? Theocracy paints with too broad a brush. You have to be deliberate in your decision not to see how broad this term really is and why it needs to be more precisely defined....



They don't want the exhaltation of any nation state, they want rule through religious doctrine.
They want to CREATE the state... That it doesn't exist yet doesn't change that they want to create that state. Pretending that "or working towards such a goal" (or words to equal effect) were not included in the OED definition won't make them go away. One doesn't have to have an existing Nation, they simply have to believe that such a nation must be created and promoted above all others... That does exist here.

This also ignores the presented secondary and tertiary definitions presented that do not rely on nationalism.... Pretending those don't exist is equally disingenuous.

AnyOldIron
08-17-2006, 07:51 AM
Damo.

Your claim that theocracy isn't descriptive enough is completely wrong. Theocracy is rule by religious doctrine.

AQ et al's stated desire is to create rule through Islamic doctine.

What part of this isn't descriptive enough for you?

You claim that we support theocracies. Where? Saudi aren't a theocracy, they are a monarchy. Besides, this is irrelevant, if we support one theocracy that doesn't mean an entity that we don't support therefore can't be.

Your sole argument for fascism is that you believe that nationalism isn't required.
Without nationalism, fascism is simply dictatorial, authoritarian and totalitarian rule.

These characteristics don't define fascism because they are found in other ideologies which I have brought up.

Do you understand this so far?

AnyOldIron
08-17-2006, 07:59 AM
And so it is with Tibet... Are they really our enemy? Theocracy paints with too broad a brush. You have to be deliberate in your decision not to see how broad this term really is and why it needs to be more precisely defined....

So your objection to the description of AQ et al as theocracts surmounts to the fact that we support other theocracies?

What kind of logic is that?

Whether we support other theocracies doesn't change the definition of theocracy.

Rule by religious doctrine is both the definition of theocracy and the stated aim of AQ et al.

Its amazing that you accept the word fascism as correct and accurate, despite the fact that the nationalism that differentiates fascism from other authoritarian, totalitarian ideologies isn't evident in AQ et al's ideology, yet refuse to accept the stated aims of these groups?

You are now moving from the denial of nationalism being required to attempting to state that nationalism is evident in their ideology, that they intend to create a nation-state.

Fair enough, but wrong again. Their intentions aren't the creation of their own nation state, but an empire ruled under Islamic doctrine.

Their intention isn't the promotion of the state, bu the promotion of religious rule.

Damocles
08-17-2006, 08:00 AM
Damo.

Your claim that theocracy isn't descriptive enough is completely wrong. Theocracy is rule by religious doctrine.


My claim is that it isn't precise enough and that it paints within it other groups that were not part of those he was attempting to describe when using this term. It isn't that it doesn't fit, it is that it doesn't fit precisely enough, it is too broad.



AQ et al's stated desire is to create rule through Islamic doctine.


(To create a nation)...



What part of this isn't descriptive enough for you?


I have demonstrated how other groups are brought under this umbrella, that this particular term is too broad to use to describe this particular subset of theocracy....




You claim that we support theocracies. Where? Saudi aren't a theocracy, they are a monarchy. Besides, this is irrelevant, if we support one theocracy that doesn't mean an entity that we don't support therefore can't be.


I mentioned it earlier.... I know it is a form of Buddhism that I personally don't follow but I know it exists... (once again proving that you don't actually read my posts...) I stated that we supported a government set on theocracy in exile... With that one can surmise who it is... Hint:

TIBET....



Your sole argument for fascism is that you believe that nationalism isn't required.
Without nationalism, fascism is simply dictatorial, authoritarian and totalitarian rule.


Rubbish, that is not my sole argument. I have stated myriad times why I believe that nationalism fits this group. That their goal is presented as a Nationalist goal.



These characteristics don't define fascism because they are found in other ideologies which I have brought up.

Do you understand this so far?

Do you understand that I have already answered this one too? So far? You are clearly having a reading comprehension problem caused by the fact that you DON'T bother to READ other people's posts.

Damocles
08-17-2006, 08:07 AM
And so it is with Tibet... Are they really our enemy? Theocracy paints with too broad a brush. You have to be deliberate in your decision not to see how broad this term really is and why it needs to be more precisely defined....

So your objection to the description of AQ et al as theocracts surmounts to the fact that we support other theocracies?

What kind of logic is that?


I have been very clear. It is a theocracy, however solely using only that term paints other groups with that "enemy" brush. When describing an enemy that happens to be theocratic one needs to exlude those that are not their enemies...

We can also use the term "people" to describe them, it is equally accurate, also very broad. It paints many groups into the description that are not our enemy.



Whether we support other theocracies doesn't change the definition of theocracy.


I have not stated it does. This is a strawman fallacy compounded by your consistent underlying fallacy of repetition... I have never stated that theocracy does not accurately define them, I have stated that it is too broad a term and that it paints others into a group that were being more precisely defined. (for somebody arguing preciseness of definition this has got to be the stupidest position ever...)



Rule by religious doctrine is both the definition of theocracy and the stated aim of AQ et al.


I have not stated that this wasn't so. I have, in fact, stated that it is a theocracy, but that the term "theocracy" includes within it groups that were not part of the topic of discussion and hence it was necessary to more precisely define which group with in that set that he was speaking of....



Its amazing that you accept the word fascism as correct and accurate, despite the fact that the nationalism that differentiates fascism from other authoritarian, totalitarian ideologies isn't evident in AQ et al's ideology, yet refuse to accept the stated aims of these groups?



I haven't stated that it was perfectly accurate, only that it was similar enough to be descriptive in using that term. It is, I continue to state so. I have even shown why Nationalist is a good way to describe the new nation that they wish to create....



You are now moving from the denial of nationalism being required to attempting to state that nationalism is evident in their ideology, that they intend to create a nation-state.


I am not "moving" there, it has been my position from the beginning, hence another example of the fact you DON'T BOTHER TO READ MY POSTS...



Fair enough, but wrong again. Their intentions aren't the creation of their own nation state, but an empire ruled under Islamic doctrine.

Their intention isn't the promotion of the state, bu the promotion of religious rule.

No, they want it to be one State built on Nationalistic beliefs...

But this is like saying that Hitler's movement wasn't Nationalist because they wanted to create an Empire. This is a hogwash argument and you know it....

AnyOldIron
08-17-2006, 08:17 AM
Right, but this thread is arguing etymology not appropriateness...

It is neither etymologically sound or appropriate...

Does it present a picture of the meaning they are trying to get across? I present that it does, have shown why I think so, have even shown why and how it actually has a better match than previous conglomerate words... All the while I've been told that it can't mean what they present it to mean....

It paints the picture they are trying to paint. It casts the negative connotations that fascism rightly earned in the C20th. That these theocrats deserve these negative connotations might be true, but this is entirely a rhetorical device.

It is designed only to create pathos, and political / philosophical debate is no place for using ambigious pathos-laden terminology.

Now, I agree with you on whether the word should have been used by the President... I'll even agree with why it was created. I also agree that I wouldn't use it and have given the word that I would use and why...

My objection is that it is such poor rhetoric, akin to calling them Islamo-boogiemen.

It doesn't fit the description of those it is designed to describe without dropping the defining characteristic of fascism and ignoring the more accurate term that is already extant.

Damocles
08-17-2006, 08:26 AM
My objection to your "objection" is that I have shown how the term actually fits. You have simply ignored it from the beginning, attributed arguments to me I have not made, redefined it in the middle, ignored definitions presented from your very own souce, pretended I hadn't answered, stated I have said things I have not, reattributed a more broad terminology that painted others with the same brush and finally...

Generally proved you didn't even read my posts at all.

LadyT
08-17-2006, 08:37 AM
whatever, I'm still going to use Christo-fascists when referring ot the religious right in this country

Cypress
08-17-2006, 08:40 AM
Relax, AOI.

I already posted the text, where Dixie admitted "Islamo-fascist" is a term intened to propagandize and "market" the war on terror.

And, I've posted the quotes from actual conservative intellectuals (e.g., from "National Review") who have also said the term is simply a war time propaganda tool.

Nobody on the planet is using the term, outside of Fox News, Dixie, the Bush admin, the RNC, and talk radio bush puppets.

Damocles
08-17-2006, 08:40 AM
Works for me.

AnyOldIron
08-17-2006, 08:45 AM
I have been very clear. It is a theocracy, however solely using only that term paints other groups with that "enemy" brush. When describing an enemy that happens to be theocratic one needs to exlude those that are not their enemies...

And fascism paints them with the enemy brush, because we have been opposed to fascism in the C20th? lol Very vague.

It is not relevant to the nature of AQ et al whether or not others that aren't enemies are theocratic, they are still theocratic.

They should be described as they are, not the rhetorical picture we want to paint. They are Islamic theocrats that we are fighting against.

Calling them fascists, when they aren't fascistic by the defining terms of the word is painting them as something they aren't.

I haven't stated that it was perfectly accurate, only that it was similar enough to be descriptive in using that term. It is, I continue to state so. I have even shown why Nationalist is a good way to describe the new nation that they wish to create....

You haven't accounted for the fact that those characteristics AQ et al share with fascism are also found in other ideologies, yet the differing characteristic...nationalism... isn't present.

Your argument that they are nationalistic is weak, their intention isn't to create a nation state whose sole purpose is the promotion of the state, their intention is to create an empire, overriding nationality, whose sole purpose is the promotion of religious doctrine.

They are, in no shape or form, nationalistic.

No, they want it to be one State built on Nationalistic beliefs...

But this is like saying that Hitler's movement wasn't Nationalist because they wanted to create an Empire. This is a hogwash argument and you know it....

Nationalism is the state working for the sole purpose of the enhancement of the state.

AQ et al's intention is the working for the sole purpose of the promotion of their religious doctrine.

Damo, they are nothing like nationalistic. Nationalism isn't simply creating a political entity or grouping such as the state. By the way, an empire isn't a nation state.

Cypress
08-17-2006, 08:52 AM
Outside the formal dictionary definition, using a historical context, there is another key difference between islamic theocracy, and fascism as its been practiced in history.

Islamic theocracy doesn't require a totalitarian, iron-fisted dictator with unitary executive authority. (i.e, Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet, Marcos). Islamic theocracies (like the religion of islam itself) is relatively de-centralized, requiring councils of mullahs, clerics, and religious authorities to act as "spiritual" leaders, interpreters of God's law, if you will. And a relative degree of autonmy is vested in local islamic councils.

with regard to nationalism, AOI is spot on. The al qaeda movement is the exact opposite of nationalism.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-17-2006, 08:52 AM
Relax, AOI.

I already posted the text, where Dixie admitted "Islamo-fascist" is a term intened to propagandize and "market" the war on terror.

And, I've posted the quotes from actual conservative intellectuals (e.g., from "National Review") who have also said the term is simply a war time propaganda tool.

Nobody on the planet is using the term, outside of Fox News, Dixie, the Bush admin, the RNC, and talk radio bush puppets.


Dixie never admitted any such thing. You claimed this, and I refuted it with sarcasm, which you construed as some sort of "admission" of something. The word is not intended to do anything, except describe radical extremists who have perverted Islam and use fascist means to advance their objectives of oppression and domination. Your butt buddy Arnold, can't seem to get this through his thick head, and insists he is correct, even after being shown where he is wrong in specific detail. You are nothing but a lying toad who can't open his mouth without a lie spewing out, so it doesn't matter what you have to say on the subject.

Damocles
08-17-2006, 08:56 AM
I have been very clear. It is a theocracy, however solely using only that term paints other groups with that "enemy" brush. When describing an enemy that happens to be theocratic one needs to exlude those that are not their enemies...

And fascism paints them with the enemy brush, because we have been opposed to fascism in the C20th? lol Very vague.


Not so much. It gives a picture of a group who wishes to rule the entire planet under one nation which they wish to create. Not as "vague" as theocrat. (like the Vatican...)



It is not relevant to the nature of AQ et al whether or not others that aren't enemies are theocratic, they are still theocratic.


I have agreed, however I have stated that using that specific term paints with too broad a brush. The new term was created to be more precise.



They should be described as they are, not the rhetorical picture we want to paint. They are Islamic theocrats that we are fighting against.


Yep... They are also islamic fascists.



Calling them fascists, when they aren't fascistic by the defining terms of the word is painting them as something they aren't.


Except they are, as explained earlier....




I haven't stated that it was perfectly accurate, only that it was similar enough to be descriptive in using that term. It is, I continue to state so. I have even shown why Nationalist is a good way to describe the new nation that they wish to create....

You haven't accounted for the fact that those characteristics AQ et al share with fascism are also found in other ideologies, yet the differing characteristic...nationalism... isn't present.


It is. I have shown how it is. That you ignore it doesn't change that it exists. That Nationalism is present in this new Nation they wish to create to rule over all others....




Your argument that they are nationalistic is weak, their intention isn't to create a nation state whose sole purpose is the promotion of the state, their intention is to create an empire, overriding nationality, whose sole purpose is the promotion of religious doctrine.


Except their religious doctrine is the State... They are inextricably intertwined in this particular doctrine. They are both Theocratic and Fascist...




They are, in no shape or form, nationalistic.


I totally disagree.




No, they want it to be one State built on Nationalistic beliefs...

But this is like saying that Hitler's movement wasn't Nationalist because they wanted to create an Empire. This is a hogwash argument and you know it....

Nationalism is the state working for the sole purpose of the enhancement of the state.

AQ et al's intention is the working for the sole purpose of the promotion of their religious doctrine.

Damo, they are nothing like nationalistic. Nationalism isn't simply creating a political entity or grouping such as the state. By the way, an empire isn't a nation state.
I know an empire isn't a nation state, however Germany was fascist and they worked to build an empire... Denying this is idiocy.

They, these theocratic nationalists, do however wish to create one Nation State, promote it above all others, and believe in the Superiority of their new "race of religion" (another example of a race of religion is present in teh Middle East as well, can you guess which one that is?)...

Attempting to ignore the Nationalistic ideation present in this particular form of theocracy is disingenuous. It fits, you don't want it to, but it does.

The most effective form of propaganda is one based in truth. You don't want it to stick because it is effective, I can understand that. But attempting to twist out of the fact it fits rather well when compared to the actual definitions of the two originating words is simply twisting....

:rolleyes:

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-17-2006, 08:56 AM
Outside the formal dictionary definition, using a historical context, there is another key difference between islamic theocracy, and fascism as its been practiced in history.

Islamic theocracy doesn't require a totalitarian, iron-fisted dictator with unitary executive authority. (i.e, Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet, Marcos). Islamic theocracies (like the religion of islam itself) is relatively de-centralized, requiring councils of mullahs, clerics, and religious authorities to act as "spiritual" leaders, interpreters of God's law, if you will. And a relative degree of autonmy is vested in local islamic councils.

with regard to nationalism, AOI is spot on. The al qaeda movement is the exact opposite of nationalism.

Who's talking about Islamic theocracy? Islamofascists are not practicing traditional Muslim belief, they have perverted Islam, and Fascism doesn't require something be non-theocratic. Islamofascists are "nationalists" and that's been explained to you as well. Just because their Caliphate "nation" has yet to be realized, doesn't mean they don't utilize the same nationalism as you are familiar with.

Cypress
08-17-2006, 08:57 AM
Dixie never admitted any such thing. You claimed this, and I refuted it with sarcasm, which you construed as some sort of "admission" of something. The word is not intended to do anything, except describe radical extremists who have perverted Islam and use fascist means to advance their objectives of oppression and domination. Your butt buddy Arnold, can't seem to get this through his thick head, and insists he is correct, even after being shown where he is wrong in specific detail. You are nothing but a lying toad who can't open his mouth without a lie spewing out, so it doesn't matter what you have to say on the subject.

You said we need to invent this new word, to give a clear indication of the evil we face. That's marketing.

We already have a word for al qaeda, that fits PERFECTLY: islamic theocrats.

Cypress
08-17-2006, 08:59 AM
Islamofascists are "nationalists" and that's been explained to you

Either you're ignorant, or you lied.

Al Qaeda is the opposite of nationalists. There are as likely to support Bosnian muslims, as they are black sudanese muslims, as they are asian indonesian muslims.

Damocles
08-17-2006, 09:01 AM
That isn't a "word" there Cypress. It is a phrase. A word is "Islamofascist" a phrase contains more than one word.. Like "islamic theocrat"...

However that is once again too simplistic of a definition and doesn't tend to put forward the fact that they are working to rule the entire world under this new nation that they want to create.... Thus, in order to present the same picture as the one-word response you need "warlike islamic nationalist theocratic dictatorship empire builders"... It just gets too large and cumbersome... I prefer a more precise and direct wording.

Damocles
08-17-2006, 09:03 AM
Islamofascists are "nationalists" and that's been explained to you

Either you're ignorant, or you lied.

Al Qaeda is the opposite of nationalists. There are as likely to support Bosnian muslims, as they are black sudanese muslims, as they are asian indonesian muslims.

This is directly disingenuous. Much like "Jewish" one can consider a religion a race. And the goal of this particular group is to unite all Muslims under one Nationalistic Dictatorship....

That they don't worry about skin color doesn't change the nationalistic nature of the threat.

Cypress
08-17-2006, 09:04 AM
That isn't a "word" there Cypress. It is a phrase. A word is "Islamofascist" a phrase contains more than one word.. Like "islamic theocrat"...

However that is once again too simplistic of a definition and doesn't tend to put forward the fact that they are working to rule the entire world under this new nation that they want to create.... Thus, in order to present the same picture as the one-word response you need "warlike islamic nationalist theocratic dictatorship empire builders"... It just gets too large and cumbersome... I prefer a more precise and direct wording.

I agree, there's no one perfect definition of al qaeda.

But there are formally defined terms that describe them better than others.

Theocrats describes them better. As practitioners of the english language, we don't strive for perfection. We strive for accuracy and clarity.

Damocles
08-17-2006, 09:07 AM
I agree, there's no one perfect definition of al qaeda.

But there are formally defined terms that describe them better than others.

Theocrats describes them better. As practitioners of the english language, we don't strive for perfection. We strive for accuracy and clarity.
"Theocrat" is far too broad of a term. The Vatican is Theocratic, are they our enemy? (sigh, we go through this one again...) The Government of Tibet in Exile is supported by the US and the UK, it is also theocratic... Are they our enemy? The term "theocrat" is not precise enough...

Cypress
08-17-2006, 09:07 AM
This is directly disingenuous. Much like "Jewish" one can consider a religion a race. And the goal of this particular group is to unite all Muslims under one Nationalistic Dictatorship....

That they don't worry about skin color doesn't change the nationalistic nature of the threat.

Much like "Jewish" one can consider a religion a race.

Huh???????

Jews can come in every color of the rainbow. The thing that binds them together is their religion, not their "race".

Its the same thing that ties saudi-born Bin Ladin to black afrian, asian, and eurpoean extremist muslims. "Race" and nationalism has nothing to do with it.

maineman
08-17-2006, 09:08 AM
this whole argument is the etymological equivalent of "how many angels fit on the head of a pin?"

the point is not whether the word is real...we know it is made up...

the point is WHY it was made up and what purpose it has.... that is what is so insidious and despicable.

Damocles
08-17-2006, 09:09 AM
Much like "Jewish" one can consider a religion a race.

Huh???????

Jews can come in every color of the rainbow. The thing that binds them together is their religion, not their "race".

Its the same thing that ties saudi-born Bin Ladin to black afrian, asian, and eurpoean extremist muslims. "Race" and nationalism has nothing to do with it.
However, they are often considered a race. Ignoring this and pretending it doesn't happen is truly and directly disingenuous. It is being directly and purposefully obtuse.

Cypress
08-17-2006, 09:09 AM
"Theocrat" is far too broad of a term. The Vatican is Theocratic, are they our enemy? (sigh, we go through this one again...) The Government of Tibet in Exile is supported by the US and the UK, it is also theocratic... Are they our enemy? The term "theocrat" is not precise enough...

apples and oranges.

Some theocrats are a threat to the united states (OBL, and Jerry Falwell), some are not (the Pope).

Some fasicsts are a threat to the united states (Hitler), some are not. We were on very good terms with Pinochet.

AnyOldIron
08-17-2006, 09:10 AM
I know an empire isn't a nation state, however Germany was fascist and they worked to build an empire... Denying this is idiocy.

They, these theocratic nationalists, do however wish to create one Nation State, promote it above all others, and believe in the Superiority of their new "race of religion" (another example of a race of religion is present in teh Middle East as well, can you guess which one that is?)...

Because the Nazis were fascist and wanted to start an empire doesn't mean all expanionists are therefore fascists.. Where's the logic there then?

You seem to have no idea what nationalism is.

The Ottoman Empire wasn't a nation state. It was an empire.
The Soviet Empire wasn't a nation state. It was an empire.

Each was ruled under a single dictator. An empire (ie an amalgamation of states) isn't a nation state.

Nationalism is an ideology where everything is geared to the promotion of the nation state. AQ et al's stated intention is the promotion of religious doctrine, not any particular nationality.

Damocles
08-17-2006, 09:11 AM
this whole argumetn is the etymological equivalent of how many angels fit on the head of a pin.

the point is not whether the word is real...we know it is made up...

the point is WHY it was made up and what purpose it has.... that is what is so insidious and despicable.
No, once again. MM, the point of this particular thread is arguing the etymology of the word. If you want to argue the morality of the usage, or whether it was proper for a world leader like Bush to use it you are in the wrong thread.

I have already agreed with you on almost every point in that I don't believe Bush should have used the term, that I would not use the term, and that I think it is propaganda.

In this thread I have argued only that the word is very descriptive and precisely so.... Not whether it is "right" to use.

Cypress
08-17-2006, 09:11 AM
However, they are often considered a race. Ignoring this and pretending it doesn't happen is truly and directly disingenuous. It is being directly and purposefully obtuse.

"often considerd a race".

I've never heard that from any educated person. First of all "race" is an unscientific term that has no relevance to humanity. There is no formal, scientitic way to divide people into "races".

Second, jews have a common religion. Not a common skin color, nationality, or geographic locale.

AnyOldIron
08-17-2006, 09:13 AM
However, they are often considered a race. Ignoring this and pretending it doesn't happen is truly and directly disingenuous. It is being directly and purposefully obtuse.

What are you smoking Damo?

Islam isn't a race. It is a religion. Many Muslims are Arabs, and their race is Semite. It isn't Muslim.

You are trying desperately to make it fit, but it just doesn't.

Religious empires aren't nation states, they have clearly different aims.

One is the promotion of the nationality, the other religious doctrine.

Cypress
08-17-2006, 09:13 AM
BTW Damo,

Yesterday I saw some videos of israeli soldiers marching home from lebanon. I saw some black-skinned jewish soldiers, evidently of african decent. I'm sure you're aware that places like ethiopia and sudan have jews. Presumably, some of them emigrated to israel

Damocles
08-17-2006, 09:15 AM
I know an empire isn't a nation state, however Germany was fascist and they worked to build an empire... Denying this is idiocy.

They, these theocratic nationalists, do however wish to create one Nation State, promote it above all others, and believe in the Superiority of their new "race of religion" (another example of a race of religion is present in teh Middle East as well, can you guess which one that is?)...

Because the Nazis were fascist and wanted to start an empire doesn't mean all expanionists are therefore fascists.. Where's the logic there then?

You seem to have no idea what nationalism is.

The Ottoman Empire wasn't a nation state. It was an empire.
The Soviet Empire wasn't a nation state. It was an empire.

Each was ruled under a single dictator. An empire (ie an amalgamation of states) isn't a nation state.

Nationalism is an ideology where everything is geared to the promotion of the nation state. AQ et al's stated intention is the promotion of religious doctrine, not any particular nationality.

Once again, their goal is to create a Nation-State where everything is geared toward the promotion of that State. Their movement is nationalistic...

The nationality will be that of the Muslim Caliphate. Ignoring this is just pretending to misunderstand, it isn't based in the real ideation. They wish to create one nation, and to promote it above all other things. It is their stated goal to do so.

I have not stated that all expansionists are fascists, only that this particular group is. You stated that they wanted to build an Empire and therefore couldn't be nationalist. I showed that that was a stupid statement because Nazi Germany was nationalist and also wanted to, and did temporarily, create an empire.

These people wish to create one Nation of Muslims, then to promote that nation above all other things. That they are expansionist is beside the point of the nationalism present in their ideology.

maineman
08-17-2006, 09:17 AM
Much like "Jewish" one can consider a religion a race.

Huh???????

Jews can come in every color of the rainbow. The thing that binds them together is their religion, not their "race".

Its the same thing that ties saudi-born Bin Ladin to black afrian, asian, and eurpoean extremist muslims. "Race" and nationalism has nothing to do with it.


actually Cypress.... most Israelis consider their "jewishness" to be ethnic and not religious at all. The vast majority of them haven't seen the inside of a synagogue in eons and only a very few "keep kosher" in any way.

maineman
08-17-2006, 09:18 AM
the ony "jews" who are not ethnic semites are converts or the offspring of converts

Damocles
08-17-2006, 09:19 AM
the ony "jews" who are not ethnic semites are converts or the offspring of converts
However, later their children consider themselves that way.

maineman
08-17-2006, 09:33 AM
However, later their children consider themselves that way.

non-semitic children of jewish converts consider themselves semites? I doubt it.

Damocles
08-17-2006, 09:34 AM
non-semitic children of jewish converts consider themselves semites? I doubt it.
After a couple generations they do. They think of themselves as jewish. Any child born of a jewish woman would...

maineman
08-17-2006, 09:37 AM
do you really think that the daughter of Sammy Davis and Mae Britt considers herself to be a semite?

there really needs to be a distinction made here between religious jews and ethnic jews.

Cypress
08-17-2006, 09:43 AM
actually Cypress.... most Israelis consider their "jewishness" to be ethnic and not religious at all. The vast majority of them haven't seen the inside of a synagogue in eons and only a very few "keep kosher" in any way.


We were talking about "race".

Ethnicity is a different topic. Semites are an ethnicity. Semites can be jewish, muslim, or christian.

"Race" in an unscientfic term based largely on skin color.

Damocles
08-17-2006, 09:50 AM
do you really think that the daughter of Sammy Davis and Mae Britt considers herself to be a semite?

there really needs to be a distinction made here between religious jews and ethnic jews.
He considers himself to be jewish, not semite. Now you are the one confusing things. Not all semites are Jewish.

Damocles
08-17-2006, 09:51 AM
We were talking about "race".

Ethnicity is a different topic. Semites are an ethnicity. Semites can be jewish, muslim, or christian.

"Race" in an unscientfic term based largely on skin color.
Or other groupings... That was my point. However one does not need all one "race" to be a Nation or nationalistic...

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-17-2006, 09:53 AM
You said we need to invent this new word, to give a clear indication of the evil we face. That's marketing.

We already have a word for al qaeda, that fits PERFECTLY: islamic theocrats.

No, I didn't say that. I told you that it was your own fault that people created the new word to better describe something you weren't comprehending. That's not marketing, it's "clarification" and nothing more.

The term you claim fits perfectly, "Islamic Theocrats", is inappropriate, because it is not ALL Islamic theocrats we are at war with, in fact, some Islamic Theocrats have taken sides with us against the radical Islamofascists.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-17-2006, 09:57 AM
Islamofascists are "nationalists" and that's been explained to you

Either you're ignorant, or you lied.

Al Qaeda is the opposite of nationalists. There are as likely to support Bosnian muslims, as they are black sudanese muslims, as they are asian indonesian muslims.

I'm not ignorant, and I haven't lied. You are unable to comprehend things, that's the problem. You want to assume or presume that "nationalism" requires a current and present physical nation entity, and it doesn't require this. You also want to presume and assume that "fascism" requires nationalism, when in fact, it doesn't. The objective of forming an Islamic Caliphate with a Caliph leader, is indeed "nationalist" in nature, and you've not refuted this in any way, and continue to just absolutely ignore the point.

Annie
08-17-2006, 07:15 PM
the point that seems to be overlooked here is this word was "newly formed" not so much for its accuracy in describing groups of people, but for the ability to create the desired emotional response to those people. You two can argue the etymological subtleties until the cows come home...but we all know that this word is being used for one primary purpose, and "accuracy and precision of communication" is not it.

Actually I think considering it came from a politician, it's fair to assume that it was reflecting the emotions or beliefs of a significant portion of the electorate. As for myself, I think Islamonazis is a better term, but I'll assume GW thought that too unpc. He's dropped the use of even the more correct Islamofascist, so you should be happier, all relative of course.

Cypress
08-17-2006, 07:28 PM
Actually I think considering it came from a politician, it's fair to assume that it was reflecting the emotions or beliefs of a significant portion of the electorate. As for myself, I think Islamonazis is a better term, but I'll assume GW thought that too unpc. He's dropped the use of even the more correct Islamofascist, so you should be happier, all relative of course.

Thank you! Well done.

Getting Dixie to admit the word "islamofacist" is simply an emotional tool, as you indicate, was like pulling teeth.

I'm glad you agree its based on emotion, and not any accurate use of the formal english defintions.

maineman
08-17-2006, 07:29 PM
Islamofascist is a made up word designed for the sole purpose of enflaming the minds of the small minded....obviously, it worked

Annie
08-17-2006, 08:02 PM
I disagree, like the term 'Crusades' brought up in the very beginning, then ignored, it clearly reflects reality. Only revisionists in history would disagree, so I guess we know where you stand, Maineman.

maineman
08-17-2006, 08:06 PM
I know where the word fascism comes from and what it means.... and I know why the neoconservatives have created this new word that incorporates fascism into it...and it has nothing to do with accuracy, and everything to do with anger and fear and manipulation.

so I guess we know that you're a inbred fucking moron Runyon.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-17-2006, 08:06 PM
Actually I think considering it came from a politician, it's fair to assume that it was reflecting the emotions or beliefs of a significant portion of the electorate. As for myself, I think Islamonazis is a better term, but I'll assume GW thought that too unpc. He's dropped the use of even the more correct Islamofascist, so you should be happier, all relative of course.


I'm not exactly sure who coined the word, the first time I heard it, was in an editorial by Michelle Malkin, and I was using it on the old board last year. In any event, the word aptly applies, and is an adequate descriptor to distinguish the specific enemy we face. You may call it propaganda or anything else you like, a marketing tool, or whatever... I really don't give two fucks what you pinheads want to call it, or what you think of it. The word must obviously evoke a discomfort amongst the pinhead masses, or there wouldn't be all this writhing and gnashing of teeth.

I think that is because it sort of takes away all of your false arguments, it doesn't allow you to continue to exploit the Islamic religion by classifying our enemy as "All Muslims", and it doesn't let you continue to justify and excuse terrorist activity and radical extremism. You disagree with this word, just as you disagreed with "war on terror" and "radical Islam" , so it's no surprise you protest this term as well, the problem is, this term fits well, and you find it difficult to attack and sound rational and sane.

One of these days, in the not-so-distant future, when they annually announce the new words for the Dictionary on the news, Islamofascist will be one of them.

Annie
08-17-2006, 08:08 PM
I'm not exactly sure who coined the word, the first time I heard it, was in an editorial by Michelle Malkin, and I was using it on the old board last year. In any event, the word aptly applies, and is an adequate descriptor to distinguish the specific enemy we face. You may call it propaganda or anything else you like, a marketing tool, or whatever... I really don't give two fucks what you pinheads want to call it, or what you think of it. The word must obviously evoke a discomfort amongst the pinhead masses, or there wouldn't be all this writhing and gnashing of teeth.

I think that is because it sort of takes away all of your false arguments, it doesn't allow you to continue to exploit the Islamic religion by classifying our enemy as "All Muslims", and it doesn't let you continue to justify and excuse terrorist activity and radical extremism. You disagree with this word, just as you disagreed with "war on terror" and "radical Islam" , so it's no surprise you protest this term as well, the problem is, this term fits well, and you find it difficult to attack and sound rational and sane.

One of these days, in the not-so-distant future, when they annually announce the new words for the Dictionary on the news, Islamofascist will be one of them.

Considering what I wrote, if I'm understanding you correctly, you probably shouldn't have quoted my post, but someone who disagreed?

maineman
08-17-2006, 08:14 PM
the use of the word to apply- apparently equally - to Hezbollah and Al Qaeda is proof enough that it is inaccurate and inappropriate.

Damocles
08-17-2006, 08:49 PM
the use of the word to apply- apparently equally - to Hezbollah and Al Qaeda is proof enough that it is inaccurate and inappropriate.

If one was to apply the term to Hizbollah, yes, it does not fit. But to Al Qaeda... You are wrong, it fits.

One (Al Qaeda) is a Nationalistic group promoting world domination after the creation of the Islamic dictatorship under their chosen leader. The other is a group of people who are mad a Jews...

AnyOldIron
08-18-2006, 02:04 AM
I apologise, Damo, I have erred. My explanation has been poor. Please let me start from the top...

When people use the term 'Islamofascism' to describe AQ et al, do you dispute that they are inferring that these people are Islamic fascists?

Damocles
08-18-2006, 06:15 AM
I apologise, Damo, I have erred. My explanation has been poor. Please let me start from the top...

When people use the term 'Islamofascism' to describe AQ et al, do you dispute that they are inferring that these people are Islamic fascists?
I do not. I think that they are less than subtle and that most of them are simply using a word that makes people scared. I do however think they came up with a fitting word on accident, at least when it comes to the promoters of the worldwide Caliphate...

AnyOldIron
08-18-2006, 06:31 AM
I do not. I think that they are less than subtle and that most of them are simply using a word that makes people scared. I do however think they came up with a fitting word on accident, at least when it comes to the promoters of the worldwide Caliphate...

So, if the word fits, then they are Islamic fascists?

Damocles
08-18-2006, 06:47 AM
I do not. I think that they are less than subtle and that most of them are simply using a word that makes people scared. I do however think they came up with a fitting word on accident, at least when it comes to the promoters of the worldwide Caliphate...

So, if the word fits, then they are Islamic fascists?
If a definition fits, it fits regardless of who or how they are using it. My argument has been from the beginning that this would be an accurate description of Al Qaeda.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-18-2006, 06:58 AM
When people use the term 'Islamofascism' to describe AQ et al, do you dispute that they are inferring that these people are Islamic fascists?

Perhaps this is why you have such a problem with the word, you interpret it inaccurately. These people are not traditionally Islamic and they are not traditionally Fascist. They have perverted Islam, they are as "Muslim" as the Ku Klux Klan is "Christian." The nature of their fascism is not exactly like the Fascism established by Mussolini in 1930's Italy, but it certainly is fascist to oppress, dictate, and force compliance through terrorism, while rallying around the notion of a great and dominating Caliphate.

This goes beyond "Islamic theocrats" or "Islamic Radicals" because they are not to be confused with traditional Islamic theocracy, and many Islamic theocrats are opposed to their actions. One of the biggest mistakes we've made in describing them, is to apply the Muslim faith in any context, to what they are. I don't think there is any accident that the word 'Islamofascism' delineates them from the rest of the Muslim community, and appropriately describes the nature of course they've chosen.

AnyOldIron
08-18-2006, 07:00 AM
If a definition fits, it fits regardless of who or how they are using it. My argument has been from the beginning that this would be an accurate description of Al Qaeda.

Ok, that's what I wanted to establish.

So if AQ et al are Islamofascists, would you agree that this indicates that they are fascists, the distinguishing characteristic from other fascists being their Islamic faith?

maineman
08-18-2006, 07:00 AM
by the way...the Caliphate has never been envisioned as "worldwide" but only encompassing the area that roughly approximates the reach of Islam in its flower.... i.e. Spain, south around the Mediterranean littoral, the Balkans, the middle east to the Indian Ocean... Al Qaeda has no designs on establishing an Islamic caliphate in North or South America or Northern Europe or China, for example

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-18-2006, 07:05 AM
If one was to apply the term to Hizbollah, yes, it does not fit. But to Al Qaeda... You are wrong, it fits.

It fits both, it also fits for the Iranian and Syrian leadership.

AnyOldIron
08-18-2006, 07:08 AM
These people are not traditionally Islamic and they are not traditionally Fascist. They have perverted Islam, they are as "Muslim" as the Ku Klux Klan is "Christian."

Ah, the 'no true scotsman' defence...lol

So if a section of a religion are deemed to have perverted an original religion, they are no longer a religion?

Are protestants therefore not religious, given their pervertion of the Catholic faith?

AnyOldIron
08-18-2006, 07:09 AM
It fits both, it also fits for the Iranian and Syrian leadership.

Dixie, what do you consider the defining characteristics that constitute 'fascism'?

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-18-2006, 07:14 AM
So if a section of a religion are deemed to have perverted an original religion, they are no longer a religion?

Not in all cases, and that's not what I stated. I gave the example of the KKK, they perverted Christian dogma to perpetrate acts of terror, but are they looked upon as a "Christian theocratic movement"? Of course not.

No one has "deemed" they've perverted the Islamic faith, they simply HAVE! It's a fact, not an opinion.

Damocles
08-18-2006, 07:17 AM
by the way...the Caliphate has never been envisioned as "worldwide" but only encompassing the area that roughly approximates the reach of Islam in its flower.... i.e. Spain, south around the Mediterranean littoral, the Balkans, the middle east to the Indian Ocean... Al Qaeda has no designs on establishing an Islamic caliphate in North or South America or Northern Europe or China, for example

Rubbish. That it it's establishment. It is believed, and they work towards, the entire planet will convert to Islam and be ruled by this Caliphate. To say otherwise implies ignorance that I know doesn't exist for you. Therefore it must be deliberate that you only look to the immediate rather than the fulfillment of the planning.

Damocles
08-18-2006, 07:21 AM
If a definition fits, it fits regardless of who or how they are using it. My argument has been from the beginning that this would be an accurate description of Al Qaeda.

Ok, that's what I wanted to establish.

So if AQ et al are Islamofascists, would you agree that this indicates that they are fascists, the distinguishing characteristic from other fascists being their Islamic faith?
It indicates that they are Islamic Nationalists working toward world domination. Your way the word would more fit if Fascism were the more important of the word placement... FascismoIslamism maybe? Pontificating on whether it means that the only thing that separates them from other fascists is their religion... Okay. I can live with that. It makes the word more precise...

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-18-2006, 07:26 AM
It fits both, it also fits for the Iranian and Syrian leadership.

Dixie, what do you consider the defining characteristics that constitute 'fascism'?

Dictatorial oppression, domination by brutal force, bigoted ideology with no room for dissent or freedom.

AnyOldIron
08-18-2006, 07:39 AM
It indicates that they are Islamic Nationalists working toward world domination

If this is the case and, for sake of argument, these Islamists can be deemed nationalist, wouldn't you consider a better description to be Islamonationalists?

Your way the word would more fit if Fascism were the more important of the word placement... FascismoIslamism maybe?

Would it make a difference? It still contains the elements that these are fascists and Islamic.

Pontificating on whether it means that the only thing that separates them from other fascists is their religion... Okay. I can live with that. It makes the word more precise...

Ok. We can state that Islamofascism indictates that they are fascists, seperated from other fascists by their Islamic faith.

What are the defining characteristics that you consider are essential for something / one to be deemed fascist?

AnyOldIron
08-18-2006, 07:41 AM
Dictatorial oppression, domination by brutal force, bigoted ideology with no room for dissent or freedom.

Ok, so what differentiates fascism from other ideologies that fit this description?

Soviet Communism, Monarchies and Theocracies amongst others all fit this description and aren't fascism.

Damocles
08-18-2006, 07:49 AM
It indicates that they are Islamic Nationalists working toward world domination

If this is the case and, for sake of argument, these Islamists can be deemed nationalist, wouldn't you consider a better description to be Islamonationalists?

Your way the word would more fit if Fascism were the more important of the word placement... FascismoIslamism maybe?

Would it make a difference? It still contains the elements that these are fascists and Islamic.

Pontificating on whether it means that the only thing that separates them from other fascists is their religion... Okay. I can live with that. It makes the word more precise...

Ok. We can state that Islamofascism indictates that they are fascists, seperated from other fascists by their Islamic faith.

What are the defining characteristics that you consider are essential for something / one to be deemed fascist?

Only if their nationalism was their only defining factor would IslamoNationalists be as precise. Of couse, it is not. Their nationalism is not the only determination... However it is inclusive in Fascism.

I think you are being deliberately obtuse because you don't like that the term does fit in this case. Even when Bush uses the term it still fits. I think that you attempt to desperately nitpick it away because any valid point from the other side somehow makes you less in your mind...

I personally think they stumbled upon a reasonably accurate word while creating propaganda. I think it sometimes happens that propaganda is accurate.... I don't think I am less because I can recognize a good turn of phrase even when somebody I don't like uses it.

AnyOldIron
08-18-2006, 07:56 AM
I think you are being deliberately obtuse because you don't like that the term does fit in this case.

Lets not count the chickens before they have hatched.

Only if their nationalism was their only defining factor would IslamoNationalists be as precise. Of couse, it is not. Their nationalism is not the only determination... However it is inclusive in Fascism.

So you agree that nationalism is required for fascism to differentiate it from other oppressive, totalitarian, dictatorial ideologies?

Damocles
08-18-2006, 08:05 AM
I think you are being deliberately obtuse because you don't like that the term does fit in this case.

Lets not count the chickens before they have hatched.

Only if their nationalism was their only defining factor would IslamoNationalists be as precise. Of couse, it is not. Their nationalism is not the only determination... However it is inclusive in Fascism.

So you agree that nationalism is required for fascism to differentiate it from other oppressive, totalitarian, dictatorial ideologies?
Look. Don't confuse me with Dixie. I have previously and multiple times explained their nationalism. You are now attempting once again to pretend it hasn't happened by simply ignoring the counterpoint to your inane argument that they have no aspect of nationalism among them.

I am not going to let you once again use this deliberate obtuse argument that so clearly points out that you don't read dissenting opinion before posting more gibberish.

Damocles
08-18-2006, 08:08 AM
I have made it clear that I think they are fascist, I have explained how I believe it fits, I have shown what I believe to be strong nationalistic views in their beliefs and political stance that does include theocracy...

You have simply repeated the same inane rubbish... "They aren't nationalist therefore can't be fascist..." without once remarking with counterpoint. You just ignore the points I make to repeat the same gibberish because it doesn't fit with what you want to hear. You just assume I make the same argument as another poster because you clearly and deliberately don't actually read points made by opposing views to yours.

Damocles
08-18-2006, 08:12 AM
You have in no way discounted my explanation of how their political/religious belief does fit within the definition of fascism as well as the all-important (only to you) definition of nationalism. All you have done is repeat ad nauseam the same argument hoping people will start believing you because you say it often enough.

AnyOldIron
08-18-2006, 08:15 AM
You have in no way discounted my explanation of how their political/religious belief does fit within the definition of fascism as well as the all-important (only to you) definition of nationalism.

I'm coming to that. Have patience Damo...

Look. Don't confuse me with Dixie. I have previously and multiple times explained their nationalism. You are now attempting once again to pretend it hasn't happened by simply ignoring the counterpoint to your inane argument that they have no aspect of nationalism among them.

I'm just asking questions....

You do then agree that nationalism is a requirement to be deemed fascist?

Whether they are nationalist we can discuss later.

Damocles
08-18-2006, 08:17 AM
No, I don't think it is a requirement, as "typically" is not the same as saying that it is always present. I do, however, believe that it is present here.

Damocles
08-18-2006, 08:17 AM
Now get to countering points made. Restating the same question again is making this thread boring.

Damocles
08-18-2006, 08:22 AM
This is fun being all belligerent and stuffs...

:cof1:

AnyOldIron
08-18-2006, 08:32 AM
This is fun being all belligerent and stuffs...

Yes, it is. Have you worked out that I am pedantic yet... lol

No, I don't think it is a requirement, as "typically" is not the same as saying that it is always present. I do, however, believe that it is present here.

Ok, so what differentiates fascism from other oppressive, dictatorial, totalitarian etc ideologies?

Damocles
08-18-2006, 08:48 AM
Many diverse regimes have self-identified as fascist and therefore the defining of fascism is more complicated and contentious than you are implying.

Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have engaged in this very debate. The debate concerning the exact nature of fascism and its core tenets has still not completed and is therefore more complicated than you are pretending that it is by assuming one definition and adjusting all other remarks around that one definition.

Mirriam-Webster defines fascism as:

"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"[1].

It is not hard to expand this to include religion as well as "race", each are equally social constructs and create well-defined lines. The nation that they exalt above the individual is clearly the caliphate...

One thing to particularly note, although this group does promote world expansion, it is not necessary to be fascist to also be Empire Builders...

Now another definition, a more recent one from a political scientist:

"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." - Robert O. Paxton

This one also fits if one concerns themselves with the fact that a Theocratic government is also a political movement and that centralizing it and expanding it throughout even just the Muslim world fits the expansionist nature of the movement....

We'll begin there.

Do you recognize that even the OED is not the definitive defining factor for a term argued over decades that as yet has not real solid agreed-upon definition among political scientists? Do you recognize that by the definitions of the scholar I quoted and the dictionary, as well as even the OED, coupled with my perspective can easily fit this ideology into fascism?

maineman
08-18-2006, 08:54 AM
and the angels on the head of the pin are standing room only at this point

Damocles
08-18-2006, 08:57 AM
Okay, now that you have had time to digest that portion...

Fascism today is defined by one or more of the following:

1. Nationalism
2. Economic Corporatism
3. A powerful Dictatorial leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it.

It is not necessary to have all three... At least according to political science scholars it isn't....

I notice I have yet to give sourcing. Many of what I have to say came from my home encyclopedia, I have however found that much of the information is also contained herein:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Definition

Damocles
08-18-2006, 08:58 AM
and the angels on the head of the pin are standing room only at this point
Once again, if you don't like arguing definition then please go to another thread, maineman. This one was specifically made to argue this point. We are specifically taking time out to argue the definition of this one word. Attempting to point out how worthless you think it is is pointless in a thread made to do this.

AnyOldIron
08-18-2006, 09:09 AM
I agree that all terms are debatable, that is why I am asking for those characteristics that seperate fascism from other similar ideologies to be isolated.

Looking through the two definitions you posted, do you notice that both definitions involve nationalism...

"that exalts nation and often race" & "in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants"

Nationalism tends to be a reoccurring theme in all definitions we are finding, from OED, OEPD, MW and D.com...

Taking a wild stab in the dark, I'd say that I don't think that nationalism being a defining characteristic of fascism is really a bone of contention.

Can I say that your argument centres upon the Khalifate being Nationalistic in it's nature?

AnyOldIron
08-18-2006, 09:15 AM
1. Nationalism
2. Economic Corporatism
3. A powerful Dictatorial leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it.

Looking at these definitions, you mentioned that it doesn't require all three to be fascism?

What differentiates between western economic capitalist corporatism and fascism?

By the definition in part three, this perfectly describes Soviet Communism, would you then describe Soviet Communism to be fascism?

P.S. I would say that if you take each of the three definitions in isolation you find ideologies that are pretty far ideologically from fascism.

If you combine the three, you isolate any other ideologies and are left with fascism.

Damocles
08-18-2006, 09:16 AM
I agree that all terms are debatable, that is why I am asking for those characteristics that seperate fascism from other similar ideologies to be isolated.

Looking through the two definitions you posted, do you notice that both definitions involve nationalism...

"that exalts nation and often race" & "in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants"

Nationalism tends to be a reoccurring theme in all definitions we are finding, from OED, OEPD, MW and D.com...

Taking a wild stab in the dark, I'd say that I don't think that nationalism being a defining characteristic of fascism is really a bone of contention.

Can I say that your argument centres upon the Khalifate being Nationalistic in it's nature? [/B]
It does, and it doesn't. I believe that the Caliphate does have nationalistic flavor to it. I did, however, also note that the second definition specifically states that only "one or more" must be present, not all three.

There are even more definitions listed on the wiki site as well as a real explanation that greater minds than ours have been arguing the definition of this word for decades and still no consensus has been reached. I also explained exactly what I believed to be nationalistic about the Caliphate and why it fit. The second definition is particularly striking in how it meshes with the current state of affairs in that region as well as being more clear that it isn't necessarily "place or race" that counts for nationalism....

Damocles
08-18-2006, 09:18 AM
1. Nationalism
2. Economic Corporatism
3. A powerful Dictatorial leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it.

Looking at these definitions, you mentioned that it doesn't require all three to be fascism?

What differentiates between western economic capitalist corporatism and fascism?

By the definition in part three, this perfectly describes Soviet Communism, would you then describe Soviet Communism to be fascism?
This person may, but I would not as it wouldn't be definitive enough. Fascism, being as unclear as it is in current contextual definitions deserves to have qualifiers... Hence you hear of Italian-fascism, Nazi-fascism and other such words when reading the works of political scientists of our time and the recent past. In this case the word is being more specifically defined by the term "islamo" beforehand giving it it's own particular "flavoring", just as those other "flavors" are added beforehand in those works of the scholars.

AnyOldIron
08-18-2006, 09:21 AM
Damo, I am leaving the office for a dirty weekend in the country so, unless we have internet access in the hotel and I can drag myself to it without risking bodily harm from the better half, we will have to continue this on Monday?

Damocles
08-18-2006, 09:24 AM
Works for me. That's the beauty of messageboards, the convesation will still be here when you get back....

Enjoy your weekend.

AnyOldIron
08-18-2006, 09:26 AM
Works for me. That's the beauty of messageboards, the convesation will still be here when you get back....

This could be a long and interesting debate...

Enjoy your weekend.

Cheers bud. Going to the country without going fishing seems a bit pointless to me but the missus thinks it will be 'nice'....

Have a good one yourself...

Cypress
08-18-2006, 09:37 AM
Dictatorial oppression, domination by brutal force, bigoted ideology with no room for dissent or freedom.


sounds exactly like communist North Korea

maineman
08-18-2006, 10:44 AM
those guys are communofascists, of course ;)

Cypress
08-18-2006, 10:47 AM
those guys are communofascists, of course ;)

this shows how inadequate Dixie's "definition" of fascism is. His "definition" applies to any and all authoritarian regimes.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-18-2006, 10:51 AM
Dictatorial oppression, domination by brutal force, bigoted ideology with no room for dissent or freedom.

Ok, so what differentiates fascism from other ideologies that fit this description?

Soviet Communism, Monarchies and Theocracies amongst others all fit this description and aren't fascism.


Neither is the Republican party, yet some people have seriously argued they are Fascists, and have even compared Bush to Hitler. I don't recall this outrage from you over that.

If they exhibit the characteristics of fascism, they are indeed "fascist" in nature, whether this is the defining parameter, would be subject to individual interpretations. One might well argue, the brutal dictatorial oppression of Soviet Communism is fascist in nature, although it is not best described as "Fascism."

My question is, why are you so caught up on the meaning of "fascist" here? We are discussing a word that utilizes "fascist" as a root, which has its own independent meaning apart from pure Fascism. We've been through this already, you can't hold the new word hostage to the dictionary definition of the root word, there would be no purpose in establishing a new word if this were the criteria, we would simply use the root word.

maineman
08-18-2006, 11:22 AM
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

please quit arguing about whether this word is real (it is clearly made up) or whether it is appropriate (does it really matter?) and discuss the reasons WHY this particular word is being used: to piggyback onto the inherent abhorence for fascism in the American people as a result of WWII... and to create fear and anger at our enemies....the fact that these neocons use this word to describe BOTH Hezbollah and Al Qaeda is proof positive that the word itself is not used with any degree of intellectual honesty, but only to create an emotional reaction.

OrnotBitwise
08-18-2006, 02:18 PM
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Actually, that's a trick question. What many people don't realize is that angels can't dance. No, really: they've no sense of rhythm at all. Can't keep time to a clock.

Gaffer
08-20-2006, 05:28 PM
Islamo-facist sounds good for lack of something else. I have never liked the term terrorist to discribe these pieces of shit. They are pukes that need to be killed as fast as we can find them. The correct term would be islomists. That's what they murder for. That's what they worship. They are ruled by a single theocratic dictatorship. facisim is a right wing political form of government. It doesn't truly apply except in its extreme hatred and desire for conquest.

Word games can be played all day and into next year, we are at war with islam. therefore they are islamists. Just like not all Germans were behind hitler all muslims are not behind the islamists. But I bet the percentages are about the same.

AnyOldIron
08-21-2006, 03:34 AM
On the need for a nationalist element in fascism.

Let's go a little further back and look at the requirements for definition.

"In Aristotle’s logical works, he creates a theory of definition. According to Aristotle, the best way to create a definition is to find the proximate group in which the type of thing resides. For example, humans are a type of thing (species) and their proximate group is animal (or blooded animal). The proximate group is called the genus. Thus the genus is a larger group of which the species is merely one proper subset. What marks off that particular species as unique? This is the differentia or the essential defining trait. In our example with humans the differentia is “rationality.” Thus the definition of “human” is a rational animal. “Human” is the species, “animal” is the genus and “rationality” is the differentia. "

http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aris-bio.htm

Using Aristotle's model of definition we must firstly find the proximate group and then the differentia.

So what are the criteria of the proximate group for these negative regimes? They are all oppressive, dictatorial, totalitarian and expansionist.

And what is the differentia between these negative regimes? With the Soviet Communism species it is slavish devotion to the proletariat's revolution, with monarchy it is slavish devotion to the whims of the monarch, with theocracy it is slavish devotion to the doctrine of religion.

With this in mind, what is the differentia for fascism? What seperates this species from other oppressive, dictatorial, totalitarian and expansionist ideologies?

On the nature of Nationalism.

Can the fervent nature of a religious empire united under a reglious banner be deemed to be nationalism?

Consider this definition of nationalism:

"Nationalism is an ideology which holds that a nation is the fundamental unit for human social life, and take precedence over any other social and political principles. Nationalism makes certain political claims based upon this belief; above all, the claim that the nation is the only legitimate basis for the state, and that each nation is entitled to its own state."

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

Using this definition it is extremely difficult to see a religious empire as a nationalist organisation, because by the definition of nationalism no other social or political principles can over-ride that of the nation state. In a religious empire, any notion of the nation is subordinate to religious doctrine. Nationalism sees the nation as the only legitimate basis for the state, the Khalifate sees religious doctrine.

Fervent belief in an ideology can be seen in this case as the proximate group, but the nation / religious doctrine is the differentia in this matter.

AnyOldIron
08-21-2006, 03:41 AM
or whether it is appropriate (does it really matter?)

Socrates died so we would understand the importance of the definition of terms...

Hermes Thoth
11-05-2008, 05:38 AM
Plus, we can also have internationalist fascism these days, which is a belief that no boundary anywhere on earth can stop corporations from doing what they want to people anywhere, regardless of national origin.

Internationalist fascism is also called globalization or "free trade"-ism.

Hermes Thoth
11-05-2008, 05:42 AM
Internationlized oppression, and oppression in the name of god are still both bad things. Let's call them all fascism.

uscitizen
11-05-2008, 09:22 PM
Plus, we can also have internationalist fascism these days, which is a belief that no boundary anywhere on earth can stop corporations from doing what they want to people anywhere, regardless of national origin.

Internationalist fascism is also called globalization or "free trade"-ism.

It has been the American way since the founding of our country.