On The 'Islamofascism' Misnomer...

Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...
"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...
 
Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Damocles said:
"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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
maineman said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...

"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.
 
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.
 
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
 
AnyOldIron said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
maineman said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top