On The 'Islamofascism' Misnomer...

maineman said:
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.
Click to expand...
He considers himself to be jewish, not semite. Now you are the one confusing things. Not all semites are Jewish.
 
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...
Or other groupings... That was my point. However one does not need all one "race" to be a Nation or nationalistic...
 
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

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.
 
Last edited:
maineman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Runyon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Islamofascist is a made up word designed for the sole purpose of enflaming the minds of the small minded....obviously, it worked
 
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.
 
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.
 
Runyon said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Considering what I wrote, if I'm understanding you correctly, you probably shouldn't have quoted my post, but someone who disagreed?
 
the use of the word to apply- apparently equally - to Hezbollah and Al Qaeda is proof enough that it is inaccurate and inappropriate.
 
maineman said:
the use of the word to apply- apparently equally - to Hezbollah and Al Qaeda is proof enough that it is inaccurate and inappropriate.
Click to expand...

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...
 
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?
 
AnyOldIron said:
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?
Click to expand...
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...
 
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?
 
AnyOldIron said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top