Hezbollah Democrats

It cracks me up that Dixie used to castigate me for relying on dictionary.com for defintions...and now he is doing it. The fact of the matter is that the dictionary definition - this one in particular, IS limiting in regards to the true meaning of fascism... and Dixie shamelessly exploits that limitation to his benefit. He really is a gadfly.
 
Arnold, the definition of "fascism" was posted a long time ago, and you continue to insist on some other definition.

By the definition of fascism (and the definition has remained since the term was first coined) these people aren't fascists.

They are neither nationalist, nor commercialist.

They might be authoritarian and dictatorial, but they aren't defining factors in fascism. Soviet Russia was both those and not fascism.

Neither is being anti-Jewish fascism. That is a defining factor of Naziism and not common amongst all fascists. Being anti Jewish is racist.

These people are theocrats.

As for 'the dictionary'...


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:fascism/fascism+.html?refid=ency_botnm

Oxford University is the arbitrator of all English definitions.
 
Uhmmm.... Arnold?

I still do not see "required nationalism" or "the amalgamation of state and commerce for the enhancement of the nation state" in your definition.

And I will point out, no one is calling the Islamic radicals traditional "fascist" rather "Islamofascist" which is a combination of words. The nationalist element of Islamofascism is the religious pervesions of Islam, hence, Islamofascist.
 
I still do not see "required nationalism" or "the amalgamation of state and commerce for the enhancement of the nation state" in your definition.

The definition reads "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing". This means that to be deemed fascist, an entity must be nationalistic.

And I will point out, no one is calling the Islamic radicals traditional "fascist" rather "Islamofascist" which is a combination of words. The nationalist element of Islamofascism is the religious pervesions of Islam, hence, Islamofascist.

I know retard, it is this weak rhetorical terminology I am arguing about.

It is an attempt to conjoin the two words Islamic and Fascist.

It is this that doesn't fit.

These theocrats aren't nationalist in any way, they reject the notion of the nation-state. Neither are they interested in economic issues.

Their sole intent is to create a theocracy.

That is why it is just weak rhetoric. The definition of these people as fascistic doesn't go.

 
Let's see if I can spell it out simply for you Dixie.

The characteristics that make you believe they are fascist are their authoritarian and dictatorial nature, their oppressiveness and expansionism.

Firstly, all these characteristics are shared commonly with other ideologies, Soviet Communism, Monarchism and Theocracies. Even the US is expansionist.

So why not call them IslamoCommunists, or IslamoMonarchists?

What differentiates between these ideologies and Fascism is the nationalistic element and the fusing of economics with state for the advancement of the nation state.

This is not evident in these people's ideology. They exhibit no nationalist tendencies, they have no use for the notion nation-state. Their intention is to create an empire based on religious teachings, not the supremecy of an indvidual nation-state. They also have no opinion economically.

The most accurate description is Islamic (Islamo is a fictional word) theocrats.

Describing them as fascists because they are authoritarian, dictatorial, oppressive and expansionist doesn't fit, as we have seen those criteria fit many ideologies.
 
AnyOldIron said:
I still do not see "required nationalism" or "the amalgamation of state and commerce for the enhancement of the nation state" in your definition.

The definition reads "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing". This means that to be deemed fascist, an entity must be nationalistic.

And I will point out, no one is calling the Islamic radicals traditional "fascist" rather "Islamofascist" which is a combination of words. The nationalist element of Islamofascism is the religious pervesions of Islam, hence, Islamofascist.

I know retard, it is this weak rhetorical terminology I am arguing about.

It is an attempt to conjoin the two words Islamic and Fascist.

It is this that doesn't fit.

These theocrats aren't nationalist in any way, they reject the notion of the nation-state. Neither are they interested in economic issues.

Their sole intent is to create a theocracy.

That is why it is just weak rhetoric. The definition of these people as fascistic doesn't go.

Click to expand...


So you are claiming that radical Islamics don't really seek an Islamic Caliphate across the middle east? They really don't desire to have people submit to their 5th century Muhammed Law? They are just peace-loving non-authoritarians, right?

You are an idiot.
 
So you are claiming that radical Islamics don't really seek an Islamic Caliphate across the middle east? They really don't desire to have people submit to their 5th century Muhammed Law? They are just peace-loving non-authoritarians, right?

You just proved AOI's point.

Yes, they seek to establish a THEOCRACY. Just as you describe above: a pan-nationalist (not nationalist) series of islamic nations, governed under sharia law, not secular law or laws of commerce.
 
So you are claiming that radical Islamics don't really seek an Islamic Caliphate across the middle east? They really don't desire to have people submit to their 5th century Muhammed Law? They are just peace-loving non-authoritarians, right?

Don't want to sound like Damo, but that is a strawman argument....

Where have I ever claimed that these radical Muslims don't want Islamic Caliphate across the middle east?

My argument is that fascist isn't an accurate description. They are dictatorial, authoritarian, repressive theocrats, not fascists.

Being authoritarian, dictatorial and repressive doesn't make you fascist, especially when you are pan-national and theocratic.

Using the term fascists for these people is lazy rhetoric; weak, poor rhetoric, trying to use the negative connotations fascism rightly gained in the C20th.

You are an idiot.

Lol... Of course I am..... I can recognise and correct weak rhetoric, so I must be...
 
a pan-nationalist (not nationalist) series of islamic nations,

Further to that...

There will be no Islamic nations, only the Caliphate. They have no interest in the concept of the nation-state.
 
.

Being authoritarian, dictatorial and repressive doesn't make you fascist, especially when you are pan-national and theocratic.

There are many forms of nation-states that are authoritarian and repressive, without being "fascist". Monarchies, communism, theocracies, feudal systems, etc.
 
Look. We looked the definition up in the dictionary and you are applying a different definition than was in the dictionary. Previously another poster on your side of the argument actually went and looked up a word in the dictionary to insure that a proper definition was being applied. In this case it is your side that ignores what you don't want to see in the actual dictionary in an attempt to define away a suddenly clearly accurate definition...

I am amazed at the dichotomy....
 
There are many forms of nation-states that are authoritarian and repressive, without being "fascist". Monarchies, communism, theocracies, feudal systems, etc.

Exactly why it is a poor description of them.

Bush's speechmakers will know this (they can't be as slow as the Monkey in Chief). The only reason that I can think of for them using it is entirely rhetorical, to attach the negative connotations fascism (rightly) acquired in the C20th.

Either that or, as Darla says, deflecting the theocratic nature due to the large number of theocrats associated with the Admin.
 
In this case it is your side that ignores what you don't want to see in the actual dictionary in an attempt to define away a suddenly clearly accurate definition...

I presume you are refering to Dixie?

From Oxford University dictionary (the official arbitrator of the language, rather than the simplistic Dictionary.com)

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

 
No, the suggestion that fascism is defined by their nationalism is incorrect...

We again will look at the dictionary term:

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.

I have bolded and italicized the word that shows that this assumption that nationalism is the only defining factor and is ALWAYS present in fascism is a mistaken assumption....

Read again: typically...

This word does NOT mean ALWAYS...

Then read the second accepted definition (second definition means it is the second-most accepted contextual definition of the word the how it is used part of the thing...) and we will find that the terminology actually fits them well. Especially if you take into account that they realized that similarities do not make something the same and hence they created a new term...

It is truly hypocritical to redefine a word to fit your argument when speaking of actual accuracy of definition. It is laughable. You are on the wrong side of this one... I know you hate to admit that you made a mistake on your assumption of definition, but you have.
 
I know retard, it is this weak rhetorical terminology I am arguing about.


And not very well. You can't even show where "fascism" is defined the way you need for it to be, to make your point. You certainly haven't demonstrated how radical Islamic fundamentalists are not fascist.

It is an attempt to conjoin the two words Islamic and Fascist.

Not an attempt, it is indeed a joining of two words. Both words have independent specific meaning, and therefore, can't be individually ascribed to the conjoined word, this would nullify the purpose of joining them. You can't say a "waterpark" is not a park because it doesn't have benches and pigeons. I will also add, these people are more "fascist" than they are truly Islamic, they have so perverted the religion of Islam, the word simply doesn't apply to their beliefs in this manifestation.

It is this that doesn't fit.

You've not demonstrated this.

These theocrats aren't nationalist in any way, they reject the notion of the nation-state. Neither are they interested in economic issues.

Yes, they most certainly are "nationalist" if you consider their warped ideology of Islam to be their "nation." It's a matter of perception, and aside from this, fascism doesn't require a traditional nationalist element, or nationalism at all, nor does it require an amalgamation of state and commerce for the enhancement of the nation state.

Their sole intent is to create a theocracy.

Yes, a FASCIST theocracy... hence the name; ISLAMOFASCIST!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top