theocratic NATION under a central rule selected by their similar to nationalistic stance of superiority of ideation....
That isn't fascism. You are describing a centralised dictatorship.
SIMILAR TO is not the same as saying that they are the same thing.... This is a strawman again, a better dressed one, but still in clown clothes.
It isn't strawman. You are making ambigious claims and then retorting to any reply that they are strawman.
they aren't similar to fascists. Neither is Islamofascism an accurate description of them. Nowhere near.
It depends on how Islamofascism is defined. In this case it is pointing out the similarities in nationalism while also showing it is different than fascism by pointing out the religious centralism of the movement. Ignoring both points of the new terminology, attempting to say that they are stating that it is equal to only one piece of the new definition and ignoring the rest, is lazy argument based in strawmen. I have pointed it out several times and your only answer is "No it isn't and it isn't a strawman"... There is no logic to back up the statement, just lazy strawmen about how similar means the same thing as "the same as"...
It's like saying a cow is similar to a horse because they both eat grass. Would you then call a cow a bovine-horse????
Bullpucky. It is more like finding a group of people that use the same tactics as pirates but aren't pirates and calling them "semi-piratical"...
This is another strawman, more elaborate and better dressed, but not the same thing.
Your argument is like stating that somebody who just came up with the term "Quadruped" to describe four-footed creatures as a whole can't use the term because the only similarity is four feet...
This one is centered around the concept of a creation of a nation state centralized under one rule... (notice the similarities with nationalism?)
It isn't centred on creation the nation state, it is centred on creating a centralised theocracy. The Caliphate isn't dedicated to promoting the notion of Egyptianness or Saudiness, but on the promotion of Islam.
The Caliphate replaces national governments and thus becomes the nation.... Attempting to say that it isn't similar is rubbish.
You are describing a theocratic dictatorship, not fascism.
I am describing a form of "religious nationalism" not simply "theocratic dicatatorship"... I believe it is more than that.
The only similarity that you have identified is the centralised dictatorship, which doesn't justfiy describing them as fascist.
Bullox. I have given far more similarities than that. I have shown how it could be considered one nation, how it is based on the same propaganda types as nationalism by creating a "superiority" in the minds of the populace, I have shown how fascism began their propaganda with religious undertones and taught it in school with the book that I gave...
All you have is "No, it's not!"... That isn't logic, it is a silly lazy strawman based on emotional rhetoric.
But it has SIMILARITIES... ignoring them because you don't wish people to use a word is simply fallacious argument not based in logical determination but in emotional rhetoric of your own!
There are similarities between a horse and a cow but you don't interchange the names as you like.
Already answered above.. Argument by repitition is also a logical fallacy, as much as strawmen argument. This is also a simplification strawman... It attempts to simplify the argument into idiotic terms that were not stated from the beginning and is more of the same type of lazy argument you have presented from the beginning.... "No it's not!" is not a logical argument.
The similarites are also similarites shared by other ideologies, monarchies and communism, for example are centralised dictatorships.
Right, but in this case the similarities of fascism are being stressed, not of monarchism...
The truth is, they are better described as Islamic theocrats, simply because they aren't fascists.
The truth is that both terms fit them for different reasons. This insistence that only old terminology must be used is a conservative linguistic stance not one based in logic...
I don't like the term simply because I abhor lazy and cheap rhetoric, which is what this is...
But describing them using a new term inculcating the religious centralism of the movement of centralizing the world under one-world government isn't.
It doesn't describe that. A central dictatorship doesn't make fascism.
No, but the "nationalistic" similarities don't end there, that is another strawman.
Islamic theocracy describes it, Islamic dictatorship describes it.
Nationalistic Islamic Dictatorship describes well what they are trying to build.
Islamofascism doesn't. It is, as I have repeated ad nausium, just poor pathos-based rhetoric designed to create an emotional response.
Islamofascism does describe it well as I have explained above using actual examples. Your "argument by repitition" fallacy notwithstanding I have given reasons why I understand the term to fit well, you have simply given me nothing but strawmen and "not it isn't"...
