Following their lead will merely dig you into an even deeper hole than you've already dug all by yourself.

like it matters now......

we told you so...

drip

drip

drip

"Jihadist" would be fine but would probably make CAIR just as mad.

I can understand not using that term (which I don't feel quite captures violent Islamism anyway).

But I don't understand why moderate American Muslims think the term applies to them. I'm a Christian, and if people criticize "Christian fascists," I know they're not talking about me, and I agree that the right-wing fundamentalist Christians are as much, if not more, my enemy as theirs.

Aren't moderate Muslims willing to single out and separate themselves from fellow Muslims who are "fascists" or extremists? If they're not Islamofascists, then the term doesn't apply to them, right?

And I have some advice of my own for George Bush: you should probably avoid any phrase that's used primarily in the fever swamps of the hawkish blogosphere.

Bad advice for Bush because he wants to tell the TRUTH and not spin as liberals are used to doing. Bush is absolutely correct in calling the terrorists Islamofascists. The terrorists are as evil as the Fascists were. The terrorists want to wipe out the Jews just like the Fascists want to. The terrorists want to take over the world and impose a dictatorship just like the Fascists want to. The terrorists and the Fascists are virtually identical except for the fact the terrorists have the extra ingredient of believing in Islam. Therefore calling them Islamofascists is the best term to describe them.

I've opined before -- as in, before Bush performed his cringe-inducing use of the word -- that anyone who used the term "Islamofascist" or its variants at all seriously should be summarily disregarded as those who use the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome" in a transparent attempt to pre-empt and delegitimize criticism of Dear Leader.

Then Bush goes and says it...good Ford! I doubt anyone takes him seriously any more, but it looks like this bull is locked in the china shop for another two-plus years. After Bush's disastrous failure of a presidency, no one -- Americans or otherwise -- will trust Republicans with national security for a generation or more. I have no doubt that Bush has already screwed things up beyond the ability of Democrats to repair over the next eight-plus years -- not that it won't stop future Karl Rove for blaming Democrats for Republican failings yet again. I only hope they manage not to screw things up too much more.

This was a well calculated move on the part of the Bush team. They've obviously concluded that the benefits they reap in the Redneck community outweighs any loss of face among people that quite frankly are unlikely to vote for them anyway. Add to that the predictable backlash from that community and the ability to then say they are standing up to "political correctness," and its all pretty clever. At least from a "rallying the base" standpoint.

The funny thing is that the term is just flat out inaccurate. "Fascism" refers to a philosophy placing the state above all else. That's not what Al Qaeda is promoting, they are promoting a philosophy placing Allah and the authority of the clerics above all esle. In fact, Fundamentalist Islam is wholly incompatible with, and actually entirely at odds with, the concept of "fascism."

This was a well calculated move on the part of the Bush team.

Yes, they saw how well racial invective is working for Senator Allen that they decided to spread the joy.

Practically everyone I've spoken with in Dearborn, from oncologists to students to clerics, brings up the term unprompted to explain how they feel themselves under collective suspicion from the Justice Department, a tone they feel Bush has set himself by using the phrase.

I agree with BRussell, the words "Christian: and "Jewish" are hyphenated into all kinds of not so nice words all the time. Why the special treatment for muslims?

If they feel they're under collective suspicion, some of it has to do with their deafening silence in condemning what the (what to call them?) are up to. Fascism seems pretty close to me.

I don't understand why liberals are in general so hard over against the term.

The IRA, Shiv Sena, Army of God, God's Army, Babbar Khalsa, SIMI, UDA, Tamil Tigers, ETA, SNLA, GIA, FLN, White Aryan Resistance... I had no idea they were all Islamic! Thanks for clearing that up Al!

I don't understand why liberals are in general so hard over against the term.

Red State Mike, I think it's because liberals support and want to appease the Islamofascists.

Thomas1:

Pat Robertson indeed wanted to place the Christian State (run by the religion) above all else.

The problem I see with Bush's use of the term is that he has a huge number of allies who are quite willing to state that all Moslems are 'Islamofascists' and refuse to accept that there are any distinctions among Moslems.

If George Bush had told off the bigots, racists and otherwise intolerant folks who pass themselves off as the Religious Right, I might think that American Moslems were being overly sensitive, but history, sadly, is on their side.

If you don't complain when your buddy uses the racist epithets, you don't get to complain when folks come to the conclusion that you are a racist, too.

So I guess that means "Hezbollassholes" is out. I'm sure Bush is a big fan of the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller bed-wetters.

How about "Islamocommies"?

Al "I think it's because liberals support and want to appease the Islamofascists"-

Did you hear the DNC is having an Islamofascist telethon this labor day weekend on PBS!!! It's krazy!

Is it OK now to criticize Israel's government without being called an anti-semite? The neo-cons are really letting Israel have it these days.

One better description of the "islamofascists" would be "theocrats". But the US religious right wing wants to become theocrats and don't mind using fascist methods.

So, hide the theocratic goal and claim that the only way to fight the 'islamofascists' is to use their 'fascist' methods.

A combination of projection with doublespeek.

Robotic repetition of words like "Islamofascist" is what substitutes for thought in the mind of the neo-brownshirt Bush-bootlicking mental slave.

The people it infuriates aren't primitive. They're the moderate, pro-American, well-integrated Muslims who form one of the greatest bulwarks against Al Qaeda that the U.S. possesses, and they see the term as draining their Americanness away.

anre they not offended by any word or short phrase that refers to the same subset of Moslems as does "Islamofacist"? Like "those Moslems who are attempting to enforce Sharia law on all the other nations where they can enforce it"?

Those people whom you call a "bulwark against al Qaeda" seem to be awful sensitive to criticisms against any Moslems. Are you sure they are a bulwark and not a breeding ground? In Michigan an awful lot of them think that the WTC attacks were a CIA/Mossad plot.

"Islamofascist" is a psuedo word that makes it look like you are knowledgeable and tough at the same time. Of course, Bush loves it.

I also think a kind of Rovian verbal pre-emption is going on. Many people consider Bushco itself to be displaying "fascist" tendencies--eg, the glorification of the corporate state (the "Homeland" indeed), the suppression of dissent, the erosion of civil liberties, the military aggressiveness, the willingness to use torture--so one way to deflect that label is to pin it on the enemy. It's a win-win strategy: Deflect it away from yourself, sound tough-minded and smart at the same time.

My question is;

Do Sunnis use the term "Shiafascist"?

DBL,
"Jihadists" is really a bad term for a different reason. Jihad doesn't mean terrorist. It would be as if they referred to our troops as "crusaders".

We should instead use the Muslim term for terrorist.

Theocraticfascists. Let's get everyone inside the big tent. MonkeyBoy is a genus! But not quite a species.

I'm thinking that "Islamofascist" has already been focus group tested as a framing device by Luntz et. al. They have probably dicovered that while it miffs Muslims, it is verbal viagra for the base.

One better description of the "islamofascists" would be "theocrats".

Nope. Lumps all religious loonies together.

Jihadist...no good. There is peaceful jihad too.

PTate said
"fascist" tendencies--eg, the glorification of the corporate state (the "Homeland" indeed), the suppression of dissent, the erosion of civil liberties, the military aggressiveness, the willingness to use torture-

None of those single out or are unique to fascism. In fact, fascism requires none of those. Read this, and see if it fits Bin Laden, Iran, Hezbollah, etc.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

To whomever wishes to complain about Bush's use of the term 'Islamofascists', he has 3 other words for them: Bring 'em on!

In Michigan an awful lot of them think that the WTC attacks were a CIA/Mossad plot. Posted by: republicrat

Probably a much smaller precentage than those idiots who think it had something to do with Iraq, asshole.

I would be interested in hearing how these "moderate, pro-American, well-integrated Muslims who form one of the greatest bulwarks against Al Qaeda that the U.S. possesses" would describe the Islamic extremests that we are fighting around the world.

I'm a Christian, and if people criticize "Christian fascists," I know they're not talking about me. . .

Would the same go for "Christofascists"? Or perhaps "Judeofascists" for others? I'm honestly curious, because mashing the terms together somehow seems to suggest a stronger connection to me.

no good Christian wants a theocracy in the U.S.

I agree that "no good Christian" wants this. OTOH, the Christian Right manifestly and unashamedly pushes for it. From which I conclude...

So there's Islamofacist. I suppose we can also use Christofacists, Hebrewfascists, Hindufacists, Buddafascists, Taofascists? Can we break them down by sect? How about Cathlofascists? Baptifascists? Episcofascists? JehovahWitnofascists?

This is fun!

. . . Christian dietary laws, . . . Posted by: Thomas1

WTF?

Would that be things like soda, white bread, over-cooked vegetables, fried chicken, vanilla ice cream?

no good Christian wants a theocracy in the U.S.

well, no shit. but plenty of bad ones do. for example, The Constitution Party

Sorry, Mike. That quote does not support your contention, it refutes it.

"The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State".

Sounds suspiciously like the Republican party.

. . . no good Christian wants a theocracy in the U.S.
Posted by: Thomas1 on August 21, 2006 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

All "good Christians" (your definition) should then join Americans United for Separation of Church and State, then.

And cease voting Republican.

I would be interested in hearing how these "moderate, pro-American, well-integrated Muslims who form one of the greatest bulwarks against Al Qaeda that the U.S. possesses" would describe the Islamic extremests that we are fighting around the world.

http://www.aicongress.org/,

I think the right term is Hizbullah fascists, Baath fascists, Republican fascists, etc. Focused, accurate, and not insulting to any religion except the well deserving christian evangelists of the American south.

"The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State".

Replace "state" with "Islam", and you get "Islamofascist".

About the only part which doesn't fit is...

...The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide.

...which doesn't leave room for suicide bombers. but then, Islam preaches a life beyond here, so it pretty much fits.

Thomas1:
see exhibit A:
http://www.family.org/cforum/

Of course the putzes at TNR (Spencer Ackerman) can only fit this into their favored frame - "The War on Terrorism is Real," the Republicans are waging it incompetently, us clever schmucks could go to war sooooo much smarter.....(by invading Iran, Syria, SA and Egypt if necessary)

Someone upthread wrote:

"...anyone who used the term "Islamofascist" or its variants at all seriously should be summarily disregarded as those who use the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome" in a transparent attempt to pre-empt and delegitimize criticism of Dear Leader."
____________________

The misuse of any complicated term should be condemned for what it is: lazy thinking. People who so indulge are not seeking for understanding, but, rather, a reason to dismiss the ones they label. Much like people who suggest that opponents should be "summarily disregarded" because they voice contrary opinions, people who routinely label people fascists are not interested in the dialectic of ideas. They just want things their way.

Words like fascist and racist are the napalm of argument. Score enough points off someone and a person will run the risk of being called a fascist, a racist, or both. After either word is used, no further thought is required because the one so labeled is now officially subhuman and no longer desires attention.

Aren't moderate Muslims willing to single out and separate themselves from fellow Muslims who are "fascists" or extremists? If they're not Islamofascists, then the term doesn't apply to them, right?

Well, the term doesn't fit and is seen (correctly in my opinion) as a back-handed way to label all with a convenient denigrating term (fascist, although queerly this empty posturing usage of fascist was rather more popular on the Looney Left side until recently, and the American Right correctly denigrated such empty abusive usages. Obviously that was not very heartfelt.)

Another major problem with the term "Islamofascist" is that it lumps together groups with very different objectives and methods of operations.

al-Qaeda is a Sunni group that uses terrorist tactics in its pursue of restoring the Caliphate.

Hezbollah is a Shite organization which has create a functioning mini-state within Lebanon.

Hamas is a Sunni group that is focused strictly on the Palestine situation.

The Taliban are an uniquely Afghan group that has more to do with Pashtun tribalism than Islam.

And there are dozens of other Islamic groups that sometime use terrorism but have no connection with each other.

How does lumping all of these groups under one label help us to defeat them?

Charlie posting as "Thomas1" wrote: Do you even know what Sharia law is?

I know that you are Charlie.

The term also offends this non-Muslim American, because it's a-historic, anti-intellectual pap. In one fell swoop it shows the speaker doesn't understand Islam, or fascism, the historical contexts of either the Second World War or our current situation or anything except how easy it is to get the Al's of the world cranked up.

Unfortunately, Satan has used that organization to drive the Church out of the public sqaure -- also something I oppose.
Posted by: Thomas1 on August 21, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

Here you're using an overly-broad definition of "public" to conflate two meanings:
There is "public" in the legal sense, and "public" in the common sense. Most Americans don't oppose common public displays, like nativity scenes in private people's front yards, or on church property. But PUBLIC property is paid for by Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Pagan, and Atheist tax money. It is IMMORAL to use the force of law, to tax people to promote a religion they may not believe in.

Lounsbury
Well, the term doesn't fit...

If you read Mussolini's definition, replacing "state" with "Islam", it is a pretty darn good fit. Better than anything else I've seen to date. It's the baggage that accompanies the term that seems to bother people.

biggerbox
The term also offends this non-Muslim American, because it's a-historic, anti-intellectual pap.

Read Mussolini's definition of fascism, making the appropriate replacements, and tell me where their agenda and his definition differs.

Discarding it out of hand is a-historical, anti-intellectual pap.

Unfortunately, Satan has used that organization to drive the Church out of the public sqaure

Except in the fevered mind of paranoiacs, the various Christian churches have not been driven out of the public square in the U.S., whether by Satan or anyone else.

arkie asks: "How does lumping all of these groups under one label help us to defeat them?"

It doesn't. It simply helps Republicans understand them.

Zionofascists. Orthodoxofascists. Dalilamofascists. WashingtonConsensusofascists.

no good Christian wants a theocracy in the U.S.

There are very few 'good Christians' in America. Rachel Corrie was one, but she is villified by those who share her religious, but not civic, beliefs.

It is no stretch at all to call terrorists Islamofascists.

Yes it is.

Terrorism is a tactic. Anyone can do it - whether they believe in fascism, or communism, or ice cream.

What people refer to as "Islamofascism" can happen in the absence of terrorism.

Now - if we start including "actions against civillians by state-sponsored uniformed combatants" in our definition of terrorism - unfortunately (very unfortunately) pretty much every nation in existence today is a "terrorist".

Tao-o-fascists are just plain evil:

The way which can be uttered, is not the eternal Way.
The name which can be named, is not the eternal Name.

BTW my Mom's a fascist.

Would that be things like soda, white bread, over-cooked vegetables, fried chicken, vanilla ice cream?

You forgot mac cheese and jello.

I never said Satan was successful (yet). You've seen the posts here wanting the Church completely out.
Posted by: Thomas1 on August 21, 2006 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

Satan has indeed succeeded.
He has place some of the most evil, hate-filled demons into places of power within the church, and earthly governments. He has used God's message to spread hatred, destruction and death, to justify bigotry, racism, murder of innocents, genocide, and slavery.

And those who believe they're farthest from him, are the ones most utterly under his thrall.

If you read Mussolini's definition, replacing "state" with "Islam", it is a pretty darn good fit.

So what? First, that's a propaganda definition which is deliberately vague and broad, second (and related to the first), any system of centralized authority with any strong organizing framework fits that definition if you replace "State" with the appropriate alternative. Absolute monarchy would be "Kingofascism" by the standard you set out. That standard is both ridiculous on its face (robbing "fascism" of any distinct meaning), and rather amazingly selectively applied by those whouse "Islamofascist" but don't apply similar "-ofascist" terms to totalitarian regimes in the region that the US supports as a notional bulwark against the so-called "Islamofascists".

no good Christian wants a theocracy in the U.S.

Did you see the story at CNN about a Sunday School teacher of 54 years being let go because the pastor is invoking Timnothy, saying no woman can teach a man? Is that First Baptist priest a good Christian?

How does lumping all of these groups under one label help us to defeat them?

Republicans don't falsely link them in their propaganda to help defeat the so-called "Islamofascists".

They do it to help defeat Democrats.

Thomas1:

Well, I don't know of any Christian who wants to tax people to promote Christianity

What do you think the large movement for prayer and teaching Christianity in taxpayer funded public schools is?

"Islamofascism” is just your average propaganda term (and not a very good one). It is just Neospeak. There is no such thing and there are no such people. They probably hand out awards at AIPAC for the best propaganda term of the month.

As with all propaganda it erases history, regional and cultural differences and politics. It is used most regularly to demonize Israel’s enemies, to delegitimize anyone sympathetic to Israel’s enemies and to dismiss anyone opposed to the neoconservative agenda in the New Middle East. More importantly it is used to create the impression of a unified totalitarian front that menaces the civilized world. As with all propaganda the more distant from reality the better. So we get Saddam the Stalinist is in the same camp with the Mullahs, who are friends with the Syrians and the Chechens, the Tube Bombers, and bin Laden and his box-cutter Saudis. Ultimately it is a term used to describe the potentiality of all Muslims.

Not surprisingly “Islamofascism” has the same narrative function as the word “communism”. I guess they decided to go with a winning formula. I am waiting to reconvene the House Committee on Un-American Activities to root out all sympathizers. Really a hard fit to say gay liberal atheists embrace Islamic theocracy.

Red State Mike’s glorious ignorance of both Islam and fascism tells us what sort of mind is amenable to this little bit of sugary propaganda.

"They do it to help defeat Democrats."

That is correct, cmdicely. And for your prize, you will receive an autographed edition of of Karl Rove's "Selling to Yokels Made Simple".

Well, I don't know of any Christian who wants to tax people to promote Christianity

You don't know any Christian who wants, for examplem, either:
1) The beliefs of the Christian Church taught in public schools at public expense, or
2) Christian schools teaching Christian religious beliefs subsidized at public expense?

Wow. You must not be aware of many of the most visible, politically active Christians in this country.

Do you think "under God" or "in God We Trust" promotes Christianity?
Posted by: Thomas1 on August 21, 2006 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK

"under God" was INSERTED into the original pledge during the Red Scare, so the only thing it promotes is craven fear of some evil godless bugaboo that Communism was supposed to be.

"In God We Trust" was intended to refer to Divine Providence, which was closer to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers, and in my mind, I don't oppose this on a secular basis, but rather more as simply an historical reference.

But "under God" is just fucking embarrassing. Especially in a pledge. It's actually unChristian.

or the ACLU suing to keep Christmas trees off city property?

What about the ACLU trying to keep the 4th Amendment intact?

Or better still - Rush Limbaugh's right to snort oxycontin tablets off an underage Dominican hooker's tits?

Why don't the Finns have an islamofascist problem? I'd think the islamofascists be a hatin' their freedom.

What's next? Using "nutroots" in a presidential radio address?

Thomas1,
I'm with you on this: your invisible man can kick the islamofascists invisible man's ass. Has anyone seen the Tooth Fairy lately? She owes me fifty cents.

I'm afraid if we don't deal with the Islamofascist problem now, after the next 9/11 we will actually go right past the House Committee on Un-American Activities directly to internment camps again. See why the issue is so important for BOTH sides?
Posted by: Thomas1 on August 21, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

I totally agree.

We must fix this "Islamofascist" problem NOW before it becomes a threat to Freedom in America.

But it's a simple fix.

1. Stop using the term to unnecessarily slander an entire religion.
2. Stop using fearmongering tactics to try to scare people into voting a certain way (ie. which is essentially the same goal as Terrorism).
3. Stop using the term to appeal to a racist voting base.
4. Stop playing into the hands of the Osama's in the world who want this conflict to be an apocolyptical religious war.
5. Educate Americans on what the REAL problem is (Theocracy), and come up with a better plan on how to stop it (like the one we VERY successfuly used in Turkey (and have since abandoned) during the cold war).

As someone mentioned, the problem is the neologism. 'Islamic fascism' isn't, I'd expect, insulting. Wrong, yes, but not insulting. For the same reason that many, many Christians would be insulted if President Bush started calling the Mussolini or Hitler regimes 'Christofascists.'

(Overlooking, for the moment, the fact that those _were_ fascist regimes.)

This is just an attempt to clothe the speaker in reflected WWII glory: see, we're fighting fascism again!

How about 'violent religious extremism?' And we can call it 'VIRULEX' to sound all cool and stuff.

Is that First Baptist priest a good Christian? He quotes Timothy to justify his authority to stop a woman from teaching boys, after 54 years. Was Timothy a good Christian?

And the difference between ISLAMOFASCISM and RAPTUREFACISM is what?

cmdicely:

Do you think "under God" or "in God We Trust" promotes Christianity?

I don't think the question is relevant; real Christian theocrats want to do a lot more than either.

Nor do I think theocracy itself actually promotes Christianity in effect, though it may be intended to do so by enforcing one vision of Christianity with the power of the state.

Has anyone seen the Tooth Fairy lately? She owes me fifty cents. Posted by: otto

"She"? Sexist pig!

And the difference between ISLAMOFASCISM and RAPTUREFACISM is what?

Nothing, really. Both groups are working together to bring about the end times.

If you read Mussolini's definition, replacing "state" with "Islam", it is a pretty darn good fit. Better than anything else I've seen to date. It's the baggage that accompanies the term that seems to bother people.

What? If you replace the word "state" with "Islam" you're completely changing the meaning, because you're replacing one concept -- a secular state -- with another that is completely antithetical to it -- a system where the state and all its people are completely subservient to a higher mystical power.

The cure for islamofascism: be more like the Japanese and just buy the oil. Stop mucking about in the middle east with the army, the bases and israel (they're all growed up now - they got nukes!).

I am surprised that none of the Repub trolls have picked up the Jonah Lucianne Goldberg meme that liberals are fascists which he expounds at great depth in a forthcoming book edited by Ramesh Ponnuru and highly recommended by Ann Coulter.

Re: Nazi Germany. Almost all of the Nazis, the SS, the Gestapo, etc, were filled with men who had been baptized and catechized as Christians. Almost all Germans who supported Hitler were baptized and catechized. Nazi Germany was a Christofascist nation.

A majority of the soldiers serving Bush in Iraq have been baptized and catechized as Christians. Does their religion inform them to keep a look out for attractive fourteen year old girls for rape, murder and arson? Or is it the Constitution and Declaration of Independence that informs them to pursue this type of happiness?

If you read Mussolini's definition, replacing "state" with "Islam", it is a pretty darn good fit. Better than anything else I've seen to date. It's the baggage that accompanies the term that seems to bother people.

By that same reasoning, you could take a common definition of "communism" as "an ideology that seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization, based upon common ownership of the means of production," replace the words "common ownership of the means of production" with "subservience to God" and bingo, you've got "Islamocommunism"!

Or take the definition of "democracy" as "rule by the people," replace "the people" with Islam, and now we're fighting "Islamodemocrats."

And if we take the definition of "republic" as a state in which sovereignty is invested in the people, replace "the people" with Islam, and suddenly they're "Islamorepublicans"....

Thank God for Thomas1.

I would never have thought to use wikipedia to look up these terms.

If you read Mussolini's definition,

A dog has four legs.

replacing "state" with "Islam",

My cat has four legs.

it is a pretty darn good fit.

Therefore, my cat is a dog.

You know, the more I think about it the more I like "Islamorepublicans" -- it really captures that attitude of mindless violent extremism....

"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini

Interestingly enough, when the term "Islamofascist" fist appeared, a few years back, Michael Savage on his radio show whas quite insistent in taking credit for coining the term which Rush etc. had co-opted.

If you've listened to Savage, you know that no more be said about the usefulness of the term.

The cure for islamofascism: be more like the Japanese and just buy the oil. Stop mucking about in the middle east with the army, the bases and israel (they're all growed up now - they got nukes!).
Posted by: otto

How mature and thoughtful of you, otto. By any chance, are you European, Asian or Latin American?

Did you see the definition of "theocracy" above?
Posted by: Thomas1 on August 21, 2006 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1:
What is a non-religiously-based argument in favor of banning Gay Marriage?

"Islamofascism" is, of course, a meaningless term. But this is just the point. The term is not meant to define, but to obfuscate. The Bushies do not want a specific, defeatable enemy. They want a phantom of their own devising, which can be used to justify any aggressive act, to avoid any responsibility.

For the rank and file, (and likely for Bush himself) the term is simply another tool for avoiding the complexities of current world affairs. Iraq a mess? Islamofascism! Hezbollah all uppity? Smells like Islamofascism! Bush's popularity at 30%? Ooo, that darned Islamofascism!

[i]'under god'[/i] is a preblem when it's promted by using Atheist's tax revenues or polydeist or...

Why does your sky leprechaun get mention anyhow?

Christoprivildge.

Congratulations to the vast majority of people on this thread who managed to avoid responding to Thomas1.

My Gawd... next time the US military needs to smoke someone out, instead of playing loud annoying music, they should just give Thomas1 a bull horn.

(Note: this is not technically a response to Thomas1.)

I like soup Nazi :)

Woah, what a great thread -- excellent comments; you know who you are. Plenty of boos and raspberries for the ususal suspects.

Great contributions by Otto (big or small 'o') and gussie. VIRULEX, wow! I like it, I like it!

Anyone who uses the term "Islamofascist" has earned the right to be called an "Islamophobe" -- a term with equivalent intellectual provenance.

And anyone who adds further insult to moderate Muslim Americans by insisting that they "live with" the term because it doesn't apply to *them* surely does not recall the history of the term "nigger" as an epithet.

Segregationists used to defend it all the time, because "nigger," you see, was a term referring to character and social class. To these *ahem* crackers, there were respectable Negroes and then there were shiftless niggers. You don't like being called a nigger, boy -- then stop *acting* like one, etc. etc. etc.

Same goddamned thing with *cough* Islamofascism. The term doesn't even parse with the Caliphate types and the Iranian state -- because in *truly* pure Islam, the state would wither away ...

Oh and Thomas: You love Wikipedia so much, go look up (I'll be damned if I do it for you) Christian Reconstruction and Dominionism if you don't believe that there are hardcore Christian "Islamofascoid" theocrats (who advocate stoning adulterers) among the political Christian right. A few of them are even GOP congressmales.

Because they advocate Sharia Law, Christo-American style.

Bob

cmdicely
So what? First, that's a propaganda definition which is deliberately vague and broad

No, it's a statement of a vision, and vision statements are by definition vague and broad.

Second (and related to the first), any system of centralized authority with any strong organizing framework fits that definition if you replace "State" with the appropriate alternative.

No. There are plenty of differentiators between his definition and other frameworks such as communism and monarchies. See phrases discussing class war, for example.

Stefan
By that same reasoning, you could take a common definition of "communism" as "an ideology that seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization, based upon common ownership of the means of production," replace the words "common ownership of the means of production" with "subservience to God" and bingo, you've got "Islamocommunism"!

No. The fascism definition explicitly calls out the perpetual struggle and rejects the notion of a perpetual peace. Communism is silent on that.

Stefan
What? If you replace the word "state" with "Islam" you're completely changing the meaning, because you're replacing one concept -- a secular state -- with another that is completely antithetical to it -- a system where the state and all its people are completely subservient to a higher mystical power.

No. See my response to Hostile below, but also, from the full doc the Doctrine of Fascism...

The Fascist conception of life is a religious one (7), in which man is viewed in his immanent relation to a higher law, endowed with an objective will transcending the in­dividual and raising him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. "Those who perceive nothing beyond opportunistic considerations in the religious policy of the Fascist regime fail to realize that Fascism is not only a system of government but also and above all a system of thought.

Hostile
Nazi Germany was a Christofascist nation.

There's your problem. you think "islamofascism" means "fascism practiced by Islamists". It doesn't. It means, "a blending of fascism with Islam" or "fascism with Islam as th state". Replace state with islam, and you get islamofascism.

I'm still sitting here trying to picture a "Buddha-fascist."

And I agree with OBF about "under God" in the pledge. Embarrassing, craven, pointless, and it ruins the rhythm of the pledge.

The full Doctrine of Fascism for anyone who cares to read it.

Holbrooke is a guy with a ton of credibility. When he says that diplomacy has to be backed up by a credible threat of force, he obviously means it: he recommended military action twice in the Balkans during the 90s. At the same time, when he says it should be a last resort, he obviously means that too: he devoted uncounted thousands of hours to se