OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Me too. Mine's too busy and it has to go. That one's inspired.
Hezbollah Democrats
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
In the context of our discussion, the word is used to describe terrorist tactics such as beheadings, suicide bombings, car bombs, kidnapping, hijacking, flying planes into buildings, improvising explosive devices, sending Anthrax through the mail, etc.
No it isn't. You have simply listed a selection of some of the methods used by terrorists. This is not a definition in any way.
Try to articulate a definition, not list a few select methods....
I know this is difficult for your tiny terrorism-fan brain but give it a try....
Hizbollah are currently using rocket attacks to attack Israel. If terrorism is simply the methods you describe, this isn't terrorism.
Now read carefully. Terrorism is the ACT of targeting civilians with the intent of bringing about political change through terrorising the population.
It doesn't matter what methods you use, or what you wear, or your religion, or whether you are employed by a government or what colour your skin is.
If you target civilians with the intent to bring about political change through intimidation, you are a terrorist.
You cannot be excused simply because you are Dixie's pet terrorists...
No it isn't. You have simply listed a selection of some of the methods used by terrorists. This is not a definition in any way.
Try to articulate a definition, not list a few select methods....
I know this is difficult for your tiny terrorism-fan brain but give it a try....
Hizbollah are currently using rocket attacks to attack Israel. If terrorism is simply the methods you describe, this isn't terrorism.
Now read carefully. Terrorism is the ACT of targeting civilians with the intent of bringing about political change through terrorising the population.
It doesn't matter what methods you use, or what you wear, or your religion, or whether you are employed by a government or what colour your skin is.
If you target civilians with the intent to bring about political change through intimidation, you are a terrorist.
You cannot be excused simply because you are Dixie's pet terrorists...
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Israel is NOT guilty of this kind of TERRORISM!
The UK is NOT guilty of this kind of TERRORISM!
The US is NOT guilty of this kind of TERRORISM!
If they target civilians with the intent of illiciting political change through intimidation they are...
We judge by actions not by race or nationality...
Islamic Fascists ARE guilty of this kind of TERRORISM!
Fascism is a specific political persuasion Dixie, an extention of nationalism.
AQ etc are Islamic religious fundamentalist extremists. They aren't fascists.
Just adding a word to something because it has bad connotations is invalid.
Much as we might dislike AQ it wouldn't be valid to claim that they are cannabals.
By using terms like this, you sound as retarded as that monkey you are so enamoured with....
The UK is NOT guilty of this kind of TERRORISM!
The US is NOT guilty of this kind of TERRORISM!
If they target civilians with the intent of illiciting political change through intimidation they are...
We judge by actions not by race or nationality...
Islamic Fascists ARE guilty of this kind of TERRORISM!
Fascism is a specific political persuasion Dixie, an extention of nationalism.
AQ etc are Islamic religious fundamentalist extremists. They aren't fascists.
Just adding a word to something because it has bad connotations is invalid.
Much as we might dislike AQ it wouldn't be valid to claim that they are cannabals.
By using terms like this, you sound as retarded as that monkey you are so enamoured with....
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Arnold, your rather simplistic definition of "terrorism" would encompass virtually every military of every country on the planet, who has ever fired a shot at an enemy. With the possible exception of France and Sweden, every country is a terrorist group, according to your definition. Indeed, warfare itself seeks to effect a political change through intimidation and fear.
As I stated, and I am not interested in debating, you can attribute a completely new word to what I am talking about, if that makes you feel better. Maybe "terrorism" is not the right word to describe what we are talking about? Maybe we should have a new word to differentiate between your definition of terror, and the radical barbarism practiced by extremist terror groups using the tactics I described? If that makes you feel better about it, that's fine, but when I use the word "terrorism" that is what I am talking about, not your simplistic dictionary definition.
As I stated, and I am not interested in debating, you can attribute a completely new word to what I am talking about, if that makes you feel better. Maybe "terrorism" is not the right word to describe what we are talking about? Maybe we should have a new word to differentiate between your definition of terror, and the radical barbarism practiced by extremist terror groups using the tactics I described? If that makes you feel better about it, that's fine, but when I use the word "terrorism" that is what I am talking about, not your simplistic dictionary definition.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
AQ etc are Islamic religious fundamentalist extremists. They aren't fascists.
Yes they are. Islamic Fascists! You can deny this and continue to defend them all you want to, by the very dictionary you swear by, they ARE indeed Fascists, and there really isn't any other word for it, but if you need to create a new word for Islamics who are Fascists, you can! In fact, that's why people started using the word "Islamofascist" when describing this particular kind of Fascism.
Yes they are. Islamic Fascists! You can deny this and continue to defend them all you want to, by the very dictionary you swear by, they ARE indeed Fascists, and there really isn't any other word for it, but if you need to create a new word for Islamics who are Fascists, you can! In fact, that's why people started using the word "Islamofascist" when describing this particular kind of Fascism.
Nobody has claimed they are cannibals, that is a strawman, AOI. Anyway, it depends on what you consider "nationalism". This is an ideation, like Marxism, being spread by a group that wants a singular government, with a Caliphate (dictator), heading it up to rule the world and are willing to do much to have that happen. Saying that there is no similarity between this and Fascism is pretending that red roses have no similarity to white ones.
Amazingly the "They're not Fascists!" crowd are the same ones who, during our last Presidential election, spent many hours comparing Bush to Hitler and calling our Government Fascists...
That is VERY TRUE Maineman!
However, can't you also then say that my husband being manslaughtered or my husband being murdered is just as painful to me, even though the law defined one as manslaughter, a lesser degree of a crime than murder?
Either crime, killed my soul mate, even an involuntary manslaughter could have killed him, and my pain and my loss would still be there forever....
And if my husband was killed by another in a complete accident, my loss and pain, would be no less painful.
Vengence is what may end up guiding my other feelings....and that is clearly what is happening in Lebanon, in Israel, in Iraq, In Iran....all over the place....but it is not the right way to go, the godly route to go....the Christian route to go, which is loving thy enemy, so that you become like burning coals on their head.....
something us measly men, can't seem to follow...
care
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Arnold, your rather simplistic definition of "terrorism" would encompass virtually every military of every country on the planet, who has ever fired a shot at an enemy.
No it isn't. Read it again Simple Simon....
'Terrorism is the ACT of targeting civilians with the intent of bringing about political change through terrorising the population.'
Soldiers don't target civilians braindead. So it doesn't incorporate every military on the planet, it incorporates thos who target civilians.
As I stated, and I am not interested in debating, you can attribute a completely new word to what I am talking about, if that makes you feel better. Maybe "terrorism" is not the right word to describe what we are talking about? Maybe we should have a new word to differentiate between your definition of terror, and the radical barbarism practiced by extremist terror groups using the tactics I described? If that makes you feel better about it, that's fine, but when I use the word "terrorism" that is what I am talking about, not your simplistic dictionary definition.
In other words you aren't capable of articulating a definition.
That's because you are slow, but are under the impression that you are pretty smart. You aren't. Your arguments are made of sand and fall apart at the slightest touch, at which point you either run away, start stating 'I'm not debating you pinheads' or deflect the argument by accusations of anti-semitism.
No it isn't. Read it again Simple Simon....
'Terrorism is the ACT of targeting civilians with the intent of bringing about political change through terrorising the population.'
Soldiers don't target civilians braindead. So it doesn't incorporate every military on the planet, it incorporates thos who target civilians.
As I stated, and I am not interested in debating, you can attribute a completely new word to what I am talking about, if that makes you feel better. Maybe "terrorism" is not the right word to describe what we are talking about? Maybe we should have a new word to differentiate between your definition of terror, and the radical barbarism practiced by extremist terror groups using the tactics I described? If that makes you feel better about it, that's fine, but when I use the word "terrorism" that is what I am talking about, not your simplistic dictionary definition.
In other words you aren't capable of articulating a definition.
That's because you are slow, but are under the impression that you are pretty smart. You aren't. Your arguments are made of sand and fall apart at the slightest touch, at which point you either run away, start stating 'I'm not debating you pinheads' or deflect the argument by accusations of anti-semitism.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Yes they are. Islamic Fascists! You can deny this and continue to defend them all you want to, by the very dictionary you swear by, they ARE indeed Fascists, and there really isn't any other word for it, but if you need to create a new word for Islamics who are Fascists, you can! In fact, that's why people started using the word "Islamofascist" when describing this particular kind of Fascism.
You haven't got a clue have you? Strange for someone with such an inflated ego....
Fascism is a specific term, it isn't something you just tag onto anything that is bad. It is a nationalist ideology and Islamic extremists aren't nationalists.
The only people I've heard use the term 'islamofascists are moronic US politicians (says it all), George 'I don't know the meaning of words' Bush and you.
You haven't got a clue have you? Strange for someone with such an inflated ego....
Fascism is a specific term, it isn't something you just tag onto anything that is bad. It is a nationalist ideology and Islamic extremists aren't nationalists.
The only people I've heard use the term 'islamofascists are moronic US politicians (says it all), George 'I don't know the meaning of words' Bush and you.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Nobody has claimed they are cannibals, that is a strawman, AOI.
No it isn't. Read what I said.
Just because something is bad, doesn't mean we can willy-nilly attach any negative label to them.
For example, if you couldn't claim Islamic extremists are cannabals just because cannabals have a bad name and you want that to rub off...
Anyway, it depends on what you consider "nationalism". This is an ideation, like Marxism, being spread by a group that wants a singular government, with a Caliphate (dictator), heading it up to rule the world and are willing to do much to have that happen. Saying that there is no similarity between this and Fascism is pretending that red roses have no similarity to white ones.
Oh Jeez, not you as well! Fascism is a specific term for a particular ideology, created in Italy in the 20's. It refers SPECIFICALLY to an amalgamation of corporatism and nationalism.
Terms have specific definitions to differentiate them from other terms. We cannot just chose any term with negative connotations that we want to attach. Desire for a dictatorship isn't fascism, although fascism usually uses a dictatorship. If it were any monarchy would be deemed fascist.
These people are Islamic extremists. They are neither nationalist not corporatist.
It is just (extremely crude and poor) rhetoric on the behalf of the Monkey-in-Chief (and his acolyte Dixie) to claim these religious fundamentalist extremists are fascists.
Amazingly the "They're not Fascists!" crowd are the same ones who, during our last Presidential election, spent many hours comparing Bush to Hitler and calling our Government Fascists...
Compared Bush to Hitler? Hardly. Hitler, insane as he was, had at least a degree of intelligence.
The current US government is closer to fascism.
Remember fascism is not a 'cover-all' negative term, it refers to something SPECIFIC.
The amalgamation of nationalism and corporatism...
No it isn't. Read what I said.
Just because something is bad, doesn't mean we can willy-nilly attach any negative label to them.
For example, if you couldn't claim Islamic extremists are cannabals just because cannabals have a bad name and you want that to rub off...
Anyway, it depends on what you consider "nationalism". This is an ideation, like Marxism, being spread by a group that wants a singular government, with a Caliphate (dictator), heading it up to rule the world and are willing to do much to have that happen. Saying that there is no similarity between this and Fascism is pretending that red roses have no similarity to white ones.
Oh Jeez, not you as well! Fascism is a specific term for a particular ideology, created in Italy in the 20's. It refers SPECIFICALLY to an amalgamation of corporatism and nationalism.
Terms have specific definitions to differentiate them from other terms. We cannot just chose any term with negative connotations that we want to attach. Desire for a dictatorship isn't fascism, although fascism usually uses a dictatorship. If it were any monarchy would be deemed fascist.
These people are Islamic extremists. They are neither nationalist not corporatist.
It is just (extremely crude and poor) rhetoric on the behalf of the Monkey-in-Chief (and his acolyte Dixie) to claim these religious fundamentalist extremists are fascists.
Amazingly the "They're not Fascists!" crowd are the same ones who, during our last Presidential election, spent many hours comparing Bush to Hitler and calling our Government Fascists...
Compared Bush to Hitler? Hardly. Hitler, insane as he was, had at least a degree of intelligence.
The current US government is closer to fascism.
Remember fascism is not a 'cover-all' negative term, it refers to something SPECIFIC.
The amalgamation of nationalism and corporatism...
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Fascism is a specific term, it isn't something you just tag onto anything that is bad. It is a nationalist ideology and Islamic extremists aren't nationalists.
I disagree. It often includes a "nationalist" element, but it is not required of Fascism. I would also argue that the beliefs of radical Islam, and the degree of fanaticism behind those beliefs, constitutes a form of nationalism. There is more to Fascism than the criteria of being "bad" as you put it. This is an intellectually dishonest thing to assert, because the associations between Islamic radicals and Fascism have been well articulated here, and not once has anyone said a thing about "bad" meaning "fascist" in their points.
I disagree. It often includes a "nationalist" element, but it is not required of Fascism. I would also argue that the beliefs of radical Islam, and the degree of fanaticism behind those beliefs, constitutes a form of nationalism. There is more to Fascism than the criteria of being "bad" as you put it. This is an intellectually dishonest thing to assert, because the associations between Islamic radicals and Fascism have been well articulated here, and not once has anyone said a thing about "bad" meaning "fascist" in their points.
.
Stop inventing your own definitions. OBL and al qaeda are theocrats, whose ideology is pan-nationalist in scope; seeking to unite all arabs and/or muslims under a theocratic rule will is based soley on the tenets of God/Allah or sharia law.
Hilter, Mussolini, and Pinochet were fascists. Not theocrats.
-Facism, noun: "dictatorial movement: any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism"
-Theocracy, noun: 1. government by god: government by a god or by priests
Stop inventing your own definitions. OBL and al qaeda are theocrats, whose ideology is pan-nationalist in scope; seeking to unite all arabs and/or muslims under a theocratic rule will is based soley on the tenets of God/Allah or sharia law.
Hilter, Mussolini, and Pinochet were fascists. Not theocrats.
-Facism, noun: "dictatorial movement: any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism"
-Theocracy, noun: 1. government by god: government by a god or by priests
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Why is it that it's okay to talk about "Islamofascists" and "Islamic fascists" when it's not okay to suggest that a member of our government might exhibit fascistic tendencies?
Supposedly, it's bad for me to call a spade a spade -- and Bush a fascistic little social climber with no morals. It's bad because using the word "fascist" is emotionally manipulative.
The same people who adhere to the above, however, also seem to believe that one can impugn all Muslims everywhere without offense.
Supposedly, it's bad for me to call a spade a spade -- and Bush a fascistic little social climber with no morals. It's bad because using the word "fascist" is emotionally manipulative.
The same people who adhere to the above, however, also seem to believe that one can impugn all Muslims everywhere without offense.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
I disagree. It often includes a "nationalist" element, but it is not required of Fascism.
It is FUNDAMENTAL to what fascism is....
"Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.
The original fascist (fascismo) movement ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. In time, the generic term fascism came to cover a class of authoritarian political ideologies, parties, and political systems, most notably Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler but also Hungary's Arrow Cross Party, Romania's Iron Guard, Spain's Falange and the French political movements led by former socialists Marcel Déat and Jacques Doriot and others."
Fascism was created as a nationalist ideology. To state that it doesn't require to be nationalistic is a basic misunderstanding of what fascism is.
I would also argue that the beliefs of radical Islam, and the degree of fanaticism behind those beliefs, constitutes a form of nationalism.
No they don't. Nationalism is the belief in power the nation state. Radical Islam are theocratic in nature, not nationalist.
Again you are just trying to fit a word with negative connotations (fascism) into something it isn't, just to make a weak rhetorical point.
It is things like this that drive me to brand you far slower than you give yourself credit for....
There is more to Fascism than the criteria of being "bad" as you put it. This is an intellectually dishonest thing to assert, because the associations between Islamic radicals and Fascism have been well articulated here, and not once has anyone said a thing about "bad" meaning "fascist" in their points.
Dixie, terms have definitions. Using the definitions properly isn't a big thing to ask for.
You haven't articulated anything, you rarely do, as with your non-existent defintion of terrorism. To claim that I am being intellectually dishonest by requesting that you use proper definitions and not poorly thought-through rhetoric is a case of the pot accusing the kettle...
It is FUNDAMENTAL to what fascism is....
"Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.
The original fascist (fascismo) movement ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. In time, the generic term fascism came to cover a class of authoritarian political ideologies, parties, and political systems, most notably Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler but also Hungary's Arrow Cross Party, Romania's Iron Guard, Spain's Falange and the French political movements led by former socialists Marcel Déat and Jacques Doriot and others."
Fascism was created as a nationalist ideology. To state that it doesn't require to be nationalistic is a basic misunderstanding of what fascism is.
I would also argue that the beliefs of radical Islam, and the degree of fanaticism behind those beliefs, constitutes a form of nationalism.
No they don't. Nationalism is the belief in power the nation state. Radical Islam are theocratic in nature, not nationalist.
Again you are just trying to fit a word with negative connotations (fascism) into something it isn't, just to make a weak rhetorical point.
It is things like this that drive me to brand you far slower than you give yourself credit for....
There is more to Fascism than the criteria of being "bad" as you put it. This is an intellectually dishonest thing to assert, because the associations between Islamic radicals and Fascism have been well articulated here, and not once has anyone said a thing about "bad" meaning "fascist" in their points.
Dixie, terms have definitions. Using the definitions properly isn't a big thing to ask for.
You haven't articulated anything, you rarely do, as with your non-existent defintion of terrorism. To claim that I am being intellectually dishonest by requesting that you use proper definitions and not poorly thought-through rhetoric is a case of the pot accusing the kettle...
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
dixie just uses islamofascist because hannity and rush do.
And because the Bush Monkey does....
And because the Bush Monkey does....
If you notice it isn't called solely "fascist" it is a conglomeration word that recognizes that it has part of the features of fascism and others of strict theocracy. If it were believed that it was totally fascist and not at least partially theocracy then they would call it "fascism" not "islamofascism"...
It is also plugging your ears and shouting "lalalalala" if you really can't see the strong central nationalist threads in the Caliphate beliefs...
Also, Hitler took his secular beliefs and centralized them around religious ceremonies, these guys take religious beliefs and centralize them around what we believe to be secular...
To say that there is no similarities at all is simply blinders placed because the word came from opposing ideation, not because it has been intellectually "proven" to be inaccurate.
It is also plugging your ears and shouting "lalalalala" if you really can't see the strong central nationalist threads in the Caliphate beliefs...
Also, Hitler took his secular beliefs and centralized them around religious ceremonies, these guys take religious beliefs and centralize them around what we believe to be secular...
To say that there is no similarities at all is simply blinders placed because the word came from opposing ideation, not because it has been intellectually "proven" to be inaccurate.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
If you notice it isn't called solely "fascist" it is a conglomeration word that recognizes that it has part of the features of fascism and others of strict theocracy. If it were believed that it was totally fascist and not at least partially theocracy then they would call it "fascism" not "islamofascism"...
No, this is just misuse of the term designed for rhetorical purposes. These people aren't fascist, they are religious extremists. Fascism isn't a 'cover-all' term for anything that we don't like.
It is also plugging your ears and shouting "lalalalala" if you really can't see the strong central nationalist threads in the Caliphate beliefs...
The Caliphate isn't nationalistic, it is theocratic. It doesn't hold the nation state as paramount, it hold theocratic beliefs. In fact the Caliphate is multi-national, it holds no consideration for the nation state.
Also, Hitler to his secular beliefs and centralized them around religious ceremonies, these guys take religious beliefs and centralize them around what we believe to be secular...
??? This anaology doesn't fit. Firstly Hitler was Catholic, secondly, Hitler's fascism was based on nationalist beliefs of superiority of the German state. Religion has nothing to do with it.
To say that there is no similarities at all is simply blinders placed because the word came from opposing ideation, not because it has been intellectually "proven" to be inaccurate.
The only similarity is that both fascists and religious extremists are deemed bad people.
Fascism ISN'T a word to be used for anyone we don't like. That is just rhetoric. Fascism is a specific term with a specific definition.
No, this is just misuse of the term designed for rhetorical purposes. These people aren't fascist, they are religious extremists. Fascism isn't a 'cover-all' term for anything that we don't like.
It is also plugging your ears and shouting "lalalalala" if you really can't see the strong central nationalist threads in the Caliphate beliefs...
The Caliphate isn't nationalistic, it is theocratic. It doesn't hold the nation state as paramount, it hold theocratic beliefs. In fact the Caliphate is multi-national, it holds no consideration for the nation state.
Also, Hitler to his secular beliefs and centralized them around religious ceremonies, these guys take religious beliefs and centralize them around what we believe to be secular...
??? This anaology doesn't fit. Firstly Hitler was Catholic, secondly, Hitler's fascism was based on nationalist beliefs of superiority of the German state. Religion has nothing to do with it.
To say that there is no similarities at all is simply blinders placed because the word came from opposing ideation, not because it has been intellectually "proven" to be inaccurate.
The only similarity is that both fascists and religious extremists are deemed bad people.
Fascism ISN'T a word to be used for anyone we don't like. That is just rhetoric. Fascism is a specific term with a specific definition.
No, it isn't. This from the fricking group that tried to make Bush a "fascist" during the last election. Hitler comparisons were flying...
Hence the reason I said "similarity" and not "equality"... If you cannot see the similarity in the central government dictatorship then you really are just plugging your ears...
Foolishness, this points out that you haven't read much about the symbolism and ceremonies of the SS and the religio-political centralism of Hitler's Nazi party...
This is bullox. Similarities abound, far more here than the comparison to "Hitler" and "Bush" that your side had to spout all during the last election. This is so totally political blinder territory it becomes laughable!
maineman
Banned
at issue is not so much the use or misuse of the word "fascist", but the inaccurate lumping of all arab and muslim movements under that umbrella.
To claim that Hezbollah is just the same as Al Qaeda is really as stupid and inaccurate as saying that "all niggers look alike". If we do not understand the motivations of our enemies, we will never be able to defeat them. We will NEVER be able to militarily defeat islamic extremism if we seek to eradicate them militarily - unless we are willing to eradicate every muslim on the planet.
Terrorism is a low tech, asymetrical form of warfare. Look at the billions of dollars spent on baggage screening devices in airports.... all incapable - it seems - of detecting liquid explosives... so shall we spend another pile of billions to upgrade those machines only to find that the terrorists develop yet another low tech counterpunch that makes the new machines obsolete?
Are we going to be able to stop someone entering the empire state building with liquid explosives strapped to their body? How do we "militarily" defeat such an enemy?
I think we would be smart to consider actually addressing the socio-economic inequities that breed islamic extremism .... my guess is it would be cheaper in the long run and more effective as well.
To claim that Hezbollah is just the same as Al Qaeda is really as stupid and inaccurate as saying that "all niggers look alike". If we do not understand the motivations of our enemies, we will never be able to defeat them. We will NEVER be able to militarily defeat islamic extremism if we seek to eradicate them militarily - unless we are willing to eradicate every muslim on the planet.
Terrorism is a low tech, asymetrical form of warfare. Look at the billions of dollars spent on baggage screening devices in airports.... all incapable - it seems - of detecting liquid explosives... so shall we spend another pile of billions to upgrade those machines only to find that the terrorists develop yet another low tech counterpunch that makes the new machines obsolete?
Are we going to be able to stop someone entering the empire state building with liquid explosives strapped to their body? How do we "militarily" defeat such an enemy?
I think we would be smart to consider actually addressing the socio-economic inequities that breed islamic extremism .... my guess is it would be cheaper in the long run and more effective as well.