I'd agree with this, if all the ones caught in the UK were also from the bottom of the socio-economic ladder....
There is far more to this than socio-economic inequities. It goes deeper than money.
Hezbollah Democrats
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
I'd agree with this, if all the ones caught in the UK were also from the bottom of the socio-economic ladder....
There is far more to this than socio-economic inequities. It goes deeper than money.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
No, it isn't. This from the fricking group that tried to make Bush a "fascist" during the last election. Hitler comparisons were flying...
Fascism isn't a cover-all insult. Calling Bush a fascist is stating that the person believes Bush supports the amalgamation of state and commerce for the furthering of the nation state.
You might disagree that this is something that Bush is doing but it fits far better than describing theocrats who have no concept of the nation state...
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...
Fascism isn't a central government dictatorship. A CGD is merely a dictatorship...
Are you claiming that Soviet Communism is fascist???
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...
They weren't religious symbols or ceremonies, they were symbols and ceremonies in exhaltation of the state.
Trust me, I've read extensively about Nazi Germany.
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!
Explain how... I've indepthly explained why the two aren't related.
Just saying 'Oh, no it isn't' doesn't constitute an argument....
Fascism isn't a cover-all insult. Calling Bush a fascist is stating that the person believes Bush supports the amalgamation of state and commerce for the furthering of the nation state.
You might disagree that this is something that Bush is doing but it fits far better than describing theocrats who have no concept of the nation state...
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...
Fascism isn't a central government dictatorship. A CGD is merely a dictatorship...
Are you claiming that Soviet Communism is fascist???
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...
They weren't religious symbols or ceremonies, they were symbols and ceremonies in exhaltation of the state.
Trust me, I've read extensively about Nazi Germany.
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!
Explain how... I've indepthly explained why the two aren't related.
Just saying 'Oh, no it isn't' doesn't constitute an argument....
maineman
Banned
if it were only about "money", it would be economic and not SOCIO-economic.
The Russian revolution was started on behalf of peasants by empathetic students and intellectuals.
And calling it Islamofascism is stating that they believe that this group is working toward a Religious state that supports teh amalgamation fo state and commerce for furthering their religious state. To say that there is similarity in one but ignoring the similarity in the other is religious blinders for convenience of argument, not logic.
No, I am stating that in every case Fascism has presented itself in a dictatorship and this is very similar when considering the Caliphate. This is a desperate attempt to erect a strawman, I have not stated that every dictatorship is fascism... only you have so you could attempt to defeat a ridiculous statement. Good thing nobody but you made it.
Based entirely in religious ceremony. That they centralized it on the state does not change that was what they were built from. Stating otherwise is admitting ignorance.
I've explained why the two are similar and hence the reason that the word is used other than "Fascism is bad"...
Ignoring the similarities in one while exaggerating them in the other is the very definition of putting on political blinders...
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
And calling it Islamofascism is stating that they believe that this group is working toward a Religious state that supports teh amalgamation fo state and commerce for furthering their religious state. To say that there is similarity in one but ignoring the similarity in the other is religious blinders for convenience of argument, not logic.
Working towards a religious state, and thus dictatorship, isn't fascism. They are theocrats, people who want a state ran only religious principles. They have no inclination towards a nation state, nor commercial intentions. Islamic societies are traditionally trade-led. They have no inclination to alter this. There SOLE goal is an empire based on religious terms.
They do not fit the description fascist.
No, I am stating that in every case Fascism has presented itself in a dictatorship and this is very similar when considering the Caliphate.
This is poor logic. Because fascist states are ran by dictators doesn't mean all dictatorships are fascist.
This is a desperate attempt to erect a strawman, I have not stated that every dictatorship is fascism... only you have so you could attempt to defeat a ridiculous statement. Good thing nobody but you made it.
Ahem... From this post....
"No, I am stating that in every case Fascism has presented itself in a dictatorship and this is very similar when considering the Caliphate."
Based entirely in religious ceremony. That they centralized it on the state does not change that was what they were built from. Stating otherwise is admitting ignorance.
"Based on religious ceremony" Are all ceremonies 'based on religious ceremony'?
Is this the best link you can find to claim that Islamic extremists are fascist, that the Nazis held ceremonies that could (if you squint) resemble religious ceremonies?
I've explained why the two are similar and hence the reason that the word is used other than "Fascism is bad"...
The similarities (simply that they are both dictatorships) doesn't justify using the term fascist.
Fascism has as much in common with Communism as it does Islamic theocracy.
Using the term Islamofascism is entirely rhetorical, designed to add a negative overtone. That negative overtone might be justified, Islamic theocrats might be ugly people, but there is no excuse for such lazy rhetoric.
Working towards a religious state, and thus dictatorship, isn't fascism. They are theocrats, people who want a state ran only religious principles. They have no inclination towards a nation state, nor commercial intentions. Islamic societies are traditionally trade-led. They have no inclination to alter this. There SOLE goal is an empire based on religious terms.
They do not fit the description fascist.
No, I am stating that in every case Fascism has presented itself in a dictatorship and this is very similar when considering the Caliphate.
This is poor logic. Because fascist states are ran by dictators doesn't mean all dictatorships are fascist.
This is a desperate attempt to erect a strawman, I have not stated that every dictatorship is fascism... only you have so you could attempt to defeat a ridiculous statement. Good thing nobody but you made it.
Ahem... From this post....
"No, I am stating that in every case Fascism has presented itself in a dictatorship and this is very similar when considering the Caliphate."
Based entirely in religious ceremony. That they centralized it on the state does not change that was what they were built from. Stating otherwise is admitting ignorance.
"Based on religious ceremony" Are all ceremonies 'based on religious ceremony'?
Is this the best link you can find to claim that Islamic extremists are fascist, that the Nazis held ceremonies that could (if you squint) resemble religious ceremonies?
I've explained why the two are similar and hence the reason that the word is used other than "Fascism is bad"...
The similarities (simply that they are both dictatorships) doesn't justify using the term fascist.
Fascism has as much in common with Communism as it does Islamic theocracy.
Using the term Islamofascism is entirely rhetorical, designed to add a negative overtone. That negative overtone might be justified, Islamic theocrats might be ugly people, but there is no excuse for such lazy rhetoric.
Last edited:
Which is, once again, the reason that they are not calling it simply "fascism" they have coined a new phrase that is more descriptive of the fact that it has some similarities but is different than... This can't be that difficult for your to comprehend. New phraseology happens on a regular basis and often is such a conglomeration. Attempting to say that they are not exactly the same so no similarity exists is the political blinders that I have spoken of.
Which is exactly what I stated is not what I was saying this is a second attempt to erect the same strawman that has already been shown to be wearing clown clothes.... Quit with this strawman. Nobody has stated that all dictatorships are fascist, EXCEPT YOU.
That does NOT say that all dictatorships are fascist. It states that fascism has, in the past, presented as dictatoriships... In fact, if you continued actually reading that post it specifically stated that not all dictatorships are fascist, that is your own strawman that you built to fight rather than use actual logic.
They didn't "resemble" they were created entirely from religious ceremonies. This is inanity. You say you have read extensively but missed this part? That is rubbish. There are several hundred books on how Hitler used religious centralism to help propagandise the nation...
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ww2era.htm
Here is just one of them, speaking of how it started with the youth.
Using the term Islamofascism is not entirely rhetorical, it is designed to portray exactly what it does portray, the similarities in fascism to centralized theocracy, specifically in the way preached by Islamic Fundamentalists. To say that no logical similarities exist is simple prententious political inanity based entirely on the fact that the idea was presented by an opposing ideology. It isn't based in logic, it is based entirely on a mistaken and illogical belief that nothing the opposing side may say can be salient to life and must be dismissed regardless of logic.
uscitizen
Villified User
So you don't believe that any innocent civies have been lkilled in Lebanon by the Israelli military ?
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Which is, once again, the reason that they are not calling it simply "fascism" they have coined a new phrase that is more descriptive of the fact that it has some similarities but is different than... This can't be that difficult for your to comprehend. New phraseology happens on a regular basis and often is such a conglomeration. Attempting to say that they are not exactly the same so no similarity exists is the political blinders that I have spoken of.
This is my point, it doesn't describe what they are. They have so little in common with fascists that you may as well describe them as Islamo-communists.
They are Islamic theocrats.
It is nothing more than lazy rhetoric.
Using the term Islamofascism is not entirely rhetorical, it is designed to portray exactly what it does portray, the similarities in fascism to centralized theocracy, specifically in the way preached by Islamic Fundamentalists. To say that no logical similarities exist is simple prententious political inanity based entirely on the fact that the idea was presented by an opposing ideology. It isn't based in logic, it is based entirely on a mistaken and illogical belief that nothing the opposing side may say can be salient to life and must be dismissed regardless of logic.
The similarities to Fascism are limited to their dictatorial nature. That is all.
There are no other similarities. But that also fits monarchies, communism and a plethera of other ideologies.
It isn't an accurate description to describe them as Islamofascists when the only common factor they have is dictatorial control.
It is nothing but lazy rhetoric.
This is my point, it doesn't describe what they are. They have so little in common with fascists that you may as well describe them as Islamo-communists.
They are Islamic theocrats.
It is nothing more than lazy rhetoric.
Using the term Islamofascism is not entirely rhetorical, it is designed to portray exactly what it does portray, the similarities in fascism to centralized theocracy, specifically in the way preached by Islamic Fundamentalists. To say that no logical similarities exist is simple prententious political inanity based entirely on the fact that the idea was presented by an opposing ideology. It isn't based in logic, it is based entirely on a mistaken and illogical belief that nothing the opposing side may say can be salient to life and must be dismissed regardless of logic.
The similarities to Fascism are limited to their dictatorial nature. That is all.
There are no other similarities. But that also fits monarchies, communism and a plethera of other ideologies.
It isn't an accurate description to describe them as Islamofascists when the only common factor they have is dictatorial control.
It is nothing but lazy rhetoric.
It is also plugging your ears and shouting "lalalalala" if you really can't see the strong central nationalist threads in the Caliphate beliefs...
OBL and al qaeda are the exact opposite of a nationalist movement.
They are entirely pan-nationalist in scope and motivation. They seek to promote islamic theocracies, and will support bosnian muslims, Iraqi muslims, Uzebki muslims, and indonesian muslims equally, on behalf of that goal.
Rubbish. They seek to centralize all of it under one Caliphate. To ignore this doesn't change that they seek to keep it all under one government. That there are no borders yet to that government doesn't mean that it isn't a nationalist movement based under a one-government theme...
I pointed out several times where it is untrue that the similarities end there, have pointed out several different similarities that you have not refuted.
There are other similarities that use of that word is used to point out... I have shown how there are similarities between the two, you have not been able to dismiss my argument so you ignore it. That's all good, but it doesn't make you right.
The use of the word isn't "lazy rhetoric" it is a new phraseology that you simply don't like and want so desperately to dismiss that no matter what logic is presented you will use strawman after strawman to dismiss it... No matter how much you attempt to dress up your strawmen they have no resemblence to the points that I have made and do not work to dismiss those points.
.
Damo, you're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. You didn't dispute the notion that al qaeda is entirely pan-nationalist (not nationalist), and that their over-arching goal is to promote theocracy. These are indisputable facts. Your not even conforming to the formal definition of "fascism"; you're simply making it up on the fly, and trying to jam a sqaure peg into a round whole.
From what I can see, your simply classifying any totalitarian or authoritarian regime as "fascist". This is simplistic, and ignores the formal defintion and nuances in words.
On the other hand, I can see and sympathize why Sean Hannity would try to link the battle against al qaeda, to the glory days of FDR and Trumans battle against german and italian fascism. Nothing speaks like success, and many politicians would like to be linked to FDR and Truman
Damo, you're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. You didn't dispute the notion that al qaeda is entirely pan-nationalist (not nationalist), and that their over-arching goal is to promote theocracy. These are indisputable facts. Your not even conforming to the formal definition of "fascism"; you're simply making it up on the fly, and trying to jam a sqaure peg into a round whole.
From what I can see, your simply classifying any totalitarian or authoritarian regime as "fascist". This is simplistic, and ignores the formal defintion and nuances in words.
On the other hand, I can see and sympathize why Sean Hannity would try to link the battle against al qaeda, to the glory days of FDR and Trumans battle against german and italian fascism. Nothing speaks like success, and many politicians would like to be linked to FDR and Truman
Because there are no actual similarities, unlike the ones that have been pointed out between this particular group and fascists. Another silly strawman, made out of the cheapest and weakest straw possible, this one isn't even dressed up!
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Rubbish. They seek to centralize all of it under one Caliphate. To ignore this doesn't change that they seek to keep it all under one government. That there are no borders yet to that government doesn't mean that it isn't a nationalist movement based under a one-government theme...
It isn't a nationalist organisation, the central theme isn't the promotion of the nation state, but an expansion of a theocracy under a dictatorship.
A nationalist organisation is centred around the concept of a nation state. Being a centralised dictatorship doesn't counteract this.
The Caliphate is a theocratic dictatorship. It isn't a fascist organisation nor does it have nationalist intentions.
Describing the supporters of the Caliphate as fascists is simply poor rhetoric.
It isn't a nationalist organisation, the central theme isn't the promotion of the nation state, but an expansion of a theocracy under a dictatorship.
A nationalist organisation is centred around the concept of a nation state. Being a centralised dictatorship doesn't counteract this.
The Caliphate is a theocratic dictatorship. It isn't a fascist organisation nor does it have nationalist intentions.
Describing the supporters of the Caliphate as fascists is simply poor rhetoric.
maineman
Banned
if we had some ham, we could have some ham and eggs...if we had some eggs.
Calling Osama a fascist is ridiculous.... I don't care how many "similarities" you create out of whole cloth
No, I don't. You dismiss the whole centralization and how it can be seen as SIMILAR (similar does not mean exactly the same, hence my usage of that word rather than "same as") to Nationalism.
No, only one that is based on the superiority of a central idea (like nationalism) that can be seen as similar to a nationalist ideation. In this case I am separating them from the regular members of the religion, showing how their centralized government and belief in their superiority as well as the propaganda terminology can be seen as similar to the same nationalist propaganda seen in fascist ideologies.
Attempting to dismiss the similarities because the idea was brought forward by somebody like Rush is partisan blinders, not logical determination. This is a desperate fictional account of how they can never be seen as "similar" because they are Muslims... It's rubbish.
On the other hand, I can see and sympathize why Sean Hannity would try to link the battle against al qaeda, to the glory days of FRD and Trumans battle against german and italian fascims. Nothing speaks like success, and many politicians would like to be linked to FDR and Truman
Hannity is simply repeating an idea from somebody far more successful. However that doesn't change that the idea can, and seems to, be based in actual logic rather than just "lazy rhetoric"....
It is lazy to dismiss an idea just because of where it originated.
The problem is, they are not out of whole cloth. They are out of what I see and backed by points of logic.
Attempting to dismiss my opinion with nothing more than "I say so!" to back you up is simply disingenuous laziness and is based on nothing logical. It is just what you want to happen because you don't want to consider an idea from another political ideation as having any validity whatsoever. Lazy.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
The use of the word isn't "lazy rhetoric" it is a new phraseology that you simply don't like and want so desperately to dismiss that no matter what logic is presented you will use strawman after strawman to dismiss it... No matter how much you attempt to dress up your strawmen they have no resemblence to the points that I have made and do not work to dismiss those points.
I don't like the 'phrase' because it is nonsense. I haven't used strawman arguments. You haven't presented ANY logic to support your claim. You have stated that they are fascist because, like Hitler, they want to be a centralised dictatorship.
Being a dictatorship, even a centralised dictatorship DOESN'T make it fascist. Communist states are dictatorships, as are monarchies. We don't describe them as fascist because.... guess what.... they aren't fascist.
Fascism is related to the concept of the nation state. It is the amalgamation of state and commerce for the enhancement of the nation state.
A centralised theocratic dictatorship doesn't make it fascist.
I call it lazy rhetoric because it is lazy rhetoric.
Fascism is a distinctly different concept from that of those who support the Caliphate. Completely different.
Maine is right, for the similarities between them, you might as well call them IslamoAstronaughts.
I don't like the 'phrase' because it is nonsense. I haven't used strawman arguments. You haven't presented ANY logic to support your claim. You have stated that they are fascist because, like Hitler, they want to be a centralised dictatorship.
Being a dictatorship, even a centralised dictatorship DOESN'T make it fascist. Communist states are dictatorships, as are monarchies. We don't describe them as fascist because.... guess what.... they aren't fascist.
Fascism is related to the concept of the nation state. It is the amalgamation of state and commerce for the enhancement of the nation state.
A centralised theocratic dictatorship doesn't make it fascist.
I call it lazy rhetoric because it is lazy rhetoric.
Fascism is a distinctly different concept from that of those who support the Caliphate. Completely different.
Maine is right, for the similarities between them, you might as well call them IslamoAstronaughts.
maineman
Banned
all this talk about what to CALL the bad guys is just another 1/3 type smoke screen to distract the discussion away from talking about how poorly we are doing at defeating them.
call them islamofascists if you like...I really don't give a fuck. You won't mind if I fail to start using your "new word", will you?
This whole argument is no more than counting angels on the head of a pin. You all can keep it up, but count me out.
call them islamofascists if you like...I really don't give a fuck. You won't mind if I fail to start using your "new word", will you?
This whole argument is no more than counting angels on the head of a pin. You all can keep it up, but count me out.