Hezbollah Democrats

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

It seems that it isn't Dixie trying to redefine something...
 
Damocles said:
However, read my post and why it fits into the similarities... As well as the fact that it fits 100% into the second definition provided in the dictionary. To deny the similarities, then ignore the definitions that you don't want to exist is what you are accusing somebody else of doing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And as I stated, their "nation" is the radical perversion of Islam. They are as "nationalist" as any fascists have ever been, they just have a different version of "nation" than you can comprehend, apparently.
 
That is not how dictionary definitions work... The second definition is the second-most used contextual definition of the word.

I am sorry if the dictionary doesn't supply you with the definition you so desperately want it to, but redefining the word is not what is being done by your opposition in this case. The one attempting to ignore actual dictionary definitions is not Dixie.
 
Dude, you can't pound a sqaure peg into a round hole. Nore cab you change a word's definition.

No one has changed the definition of a word. We are discussing the new word, Islamofascism, and how it applies to the enemy we are faced with. You are arguing that "fascism" can't be used in the word, because it doesn't fit your predetermined ideas of what "fascism" is, which are inaccurate according to the dictionary. You seem to be the one who wants to redefine words here, not me.
 
Dixie said:
Dude, you can't pound a sqaure peg into a round hole. Nore cab you change a word's definition.

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

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

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

Actual intellectual conservative pundits - like Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens - have denounced the term as simplistic and stupid.
 
Cypress said:
I understand that you, Dixie, can get caught up in wartime propaganda.

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

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

What about another hero of mine Bill O'Reilly?
 
Joseph Sobran, conservative syndicated columnist and writer for the National Review:.


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


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

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

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

So, for the sake of clarity, and to put an end to the word-parsing minutia, we will stop calling it the "War on Terror" and start saying we are in a war with Islamofascists, because that fits more appropriately with what is actually happening. Sorry you don't like it, but it's your own fault.
 
Dixie said:
Well, propaganda seems to be the order of the day with you people, so you shouldn't mind a little of it thrown back in your face now and then, should you? You can claim it is an "empty propaganda term" all you like, it's been explained here, and the definition fits appropriately with what we are talking about, whether you like it or not.

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

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


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

BINGO!

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

Relax dude. You don't have to invent words to market your war. Everybody wants Bin Ladin and his cronies brought down
 
Whew, finally a bush puppet who admits the truth. The whole "islamofacist" nonsense, was invented by republican partisans as a marketing tool at best, propaganda at worst. A "word" to "clarify" the evil we face.

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

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

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

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

Racism isn't something that is required for the definition, it is mostly a side effect of zealous nationalism.
 
Secondly, Islamofascism is not "nonsense" it's the threat we face and the enemy we are at war with. It wasn't "invented by Republicans" as a "marketing tool" or whatever nonsense you keep spewing, it is an appropriate term to describe something that conventional words did not suffice to describe.

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

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

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

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

They are Islamic Extremist Theocrats.

Using the phrase Islamofascists is entirely a rhetorical tool, designed to create pathos but it is highly inaccurate and thus weak rhetoric.
 
The purpose of calling it Islamofascism, is to denote the specificity of the evil we are facing and the special nature of the enemy we are at war with.

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

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

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

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

Don't want to sound like Damo but it is a rhetorical strawman...
 
AnyOldIron said:
The purpose of calling it Islamofascism, is to denote the specificity of the evil we are facing and the special nature of the enemy we are at war with.

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

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

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

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

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

It's my personal opinion that the reigning powers do not ever want Islamic fanatics to be termed what you rightly point out they are..."Islamic theocrats" for the plain and simple reason that the reigning powers are themselves, Christian theocrats, and they do not want to even imply that there is anything wrong with that, or, that the two, are remotely related, when in fact, they are exactly alike. And both dangerous.
 
Very true Darla. It is all about rhetorical connotations. Theocrat, due to their preponderance for theocracy, doesn't sound half as threatening as fascist....
 
Arnold, the definition of "fascism" was posted a long time ago, and you continue to insist on some other definition. I simply don't know what to say, except you are just plain wrong here. You can keep on repeating yourself over and over, but honestly, I read your ill-informed opinion already, and you've offered no further relevant information. You are describing the specific fascism found in 1940's Italy, and no doubt, that was indeed fascism, but it is not the only form fascism can take, nor is it the defining factor of fascism, it's actually the other way around.

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

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

often Fascism
1. a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Click to expand...


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

Now, keep repeating your false definition like a parrot, and keep making a complete fool of yourself, or accept what most thinking and intelligent people do, the dictionary definition of what we are discussing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top