On The 'Islamofascism' Misnomer...

[AnyOldIron]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

whatever, I'm still going to use Christo-fascists when referring ot the religious right in this country

 

[Cypress]

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]

Works for me.

 

[AnyOldIron]

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]

.

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]

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]

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....

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

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]

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]

.

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]

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.