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 serious, toughminded diplomacy during the same period. Some of it worked and some of it didn't, but his dedication to the cause is hardly questionable.And despite his continued unwillingness to flatly face the reality that we can't afford to stay in Iraq any longer, he had by far the better of the argument when the subject turned to Iran. Diplomacy is not, he reminded Kristol, in and of itself a sign of weakness. Of course we should be willing to talk directly to Syria and Iran, rather than leaving the job to third partie

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers ... was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

"In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders...

"As a Christian ... I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice..."
--adolf hitler

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

Posted by: Otto on August 21, 2006 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK

Don't you know, its because America is a bastion of freedom. They'd go after the Finn's but they, like everyone else in the world, are objectively less free than Americans. That's why the US is targeted.

It's a term used by lazy, bitter white male Amurican morons who watch too much Fox News and listen to talk radio because they are too fucking stupid to think for themselves.

However, they think they are being terribly clever using that term but again are too stupid to even understand 'why they hate us'.

Rush did originate the subject term in a moment of monumental brilliance after being prescribed Viagra for erectile dysfunction. The chemical instead acted as a powerful mental stimulant, inasmuch as Rush is a total dickhead.

"... a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."
--the anatomy of fascism, robert o. paxton, quoted in salon

So GWB is using a term coined by Michael Savage? That pretty much says all that needs to be said on this topic.

Why don't we call them "IslamoStraussians"?

Tibetan Buddhism was very bad for the people. It was not fascism, of course, but it was a tryranny. The people of Tibet get much better treatment now.

Fascism seems pretty close to me…. Red State Mike at 5:13 PM

Well, I don't know of any Christian who wants to tax people to promote Christianity…chuckles Thomas1 6:12 PM

I never said Satan was successful (yet)….Chuckles: Thomas1 6:16 PM

Red State Mike:

You really don't appear to know very much about Islam, Mike.
I'd suggest you have a look-see at the works of Sayyid Qutb, the
spiritual founder of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and the explict
intellectual progenitor of Zawahiri. If anything, you can blame the
reintroduction of takfir (the righteous murdering of fellow Muslims
and the overthrowing of Muslim regimes for apostasy) on the screwy
mid-century *Leftist* ideas this guy imbibed.

Sartre, Fanon and the Bolsheviks are a lot more culpable for the
ideology of al Qaeda than the ideologists behind Hitler and Mussolini
-- though to be perfectly honest, there are a number of superficial
similarities such as invoking an alleged golden age of glory in the
distant past (the Teutonic Knights, ancient Rome, the 14th century
Caliphate) and an explicit desire for the people to merge their
own identites with the State.

But that can be said about nearly every form of totalitarianism, not
merely Fascism.

Bob

Jeffll,
I'm not sure what your point is?
"How mature and thoughtful of you, otto. By any chance, are you European, Asian or Latin American?"

In case you missed it-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.

Please disscuss.

Charlie/Thomas1...

Are you getting paid by the word now?

Thought you were a lawyer. The Pepperdine Snowflake thing didn't work our so well?

I warned you a couple of years ago about keeping your billable hours up. Looks like you are on the fast track to nowhere.

Disputo on August 21, 2006 at 7:16 PM:

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

Exactly; thanks for the quote I was looking for...Anyone who uses the term 'Islamofascist' is displaying an acute ignorance of history, an astonishing lack of knowledge regarding one of the world's major religions, and little awareness of the Middle East in particular...

...Which pretty much describes our president...

republicrat on August 21, 2006 at 5:35 PM:

Those people whom you call a "bulwark against al Qaeda" seem to be awful sensitive to criticisms against any Moslems.

Just as some Christians are hypersensitive to criticism...Your point is?

Are you sure they are a bulwark and not a breeding ground?

Bulwark. Within 2-3 generations the kids are Americanized and devout Muslims will complain like devout Christians about how the younguns don't go to mosque, watch too much tv, and wear crappy clothes.

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

'Awful lot'? Cite your source, please...Otherwise I get to call bullshit on your bullshit statement.

Kevin - does it ever, ever occur to you not to blame America first? Perhaps there is an alternative explanation for this phenomenon - the first words learned in our modern day Ellis Island communities is "Discrimination!!!!!!!!" followed promptly by "I'll sue." Its called mining the bottomless pit of liberal guilt and most of us insensitive Americans are fed up with it. If you want to live in the melting pot, you need a thick skin and to be willing to handle concepts like freedom of speech. If you are a wilting flower that just can't adjust move to Canada, where they pride themselves on being more sensitive.

Otto says Thomas1 rulz! Jesus loves you Thomas1.

Of course the single *biggest* difference between the Fascist regimes of yore and the IslamoNutjobs immolating themselves for 72 white raisins (Two Scoops!), uhh, I mean black-eyed virgins is that Germany, Italy and Spain were modern industrial societies, and Stalin (if you wanna try IslamoBolshevism on for size) was busy flinging his peasant nation headfirst into modernity ...

None of these IslamoThanatophiles even have themselves a single state. Iran is a player on the world stage and has committed no acts of territorial revanchism, nor can Iranian "rule of the jurist" Shi'ism be exported -- even to Iraq -- because it's a uniquely Persian school of Shi'ite thought.

Bob

The term zionazi should, therefore, also find a comfortable foothold in discourse. And oversensitive jews can go fuck themselves.

most of us insensitive Americans are fed up with it

Oh, don't be coy - you're plenty sensitive - downright touchy in fact, but only to criticisms of Dear Leader and the Repulican Party, as evidenced by your lame "love it or leave it" admonitions.

Considering that Bush is now so unpopular, that he has to sneak around like a pedophile (which he is, by the way), I’m not sure “Islmaofascism” was such a good quip.

Let's just buy the oil and agree to disagree about the Tooth Fairy. Then maybe they'll spend more time disagreeing about their Tooth Fairy over there than here. Allah Akbar!

Those crafty Islamofascists are now infiltrating cricket teams.

(Sorry; just had to say it before one of the local trolls did.)

In case you missed it-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. Please disscuss.Posted by: otto

Duh. That's why I was asking whether you were something other than an American. If I need to explain further, I'll just assume you plagiarized someone else's post.

(Hint: I was agreeing with you.)

... and when I talk about "redneck crackers," I only mean the ignorant whites who vote republican and whine about those that "hate our freedom." make a note.

the crackers need not even be from the south.

Bob
You really don't appear to know very much about Islam, Mike.

I'd say I'm not the best read on the topic here, but better read than most. Three recent reads are In the Shadow of the Prophet (Viorst) Holy War (Armstrong) and...yes...Idiot's Guide to islam. Viorst spends a lot of time on Qutb. I am familiar.

I'm not fanatical about the name "islamofascism", although I think it fits. I don't know what sort of name someone will come up with, though, that will avoid insulting muslims. Since Islam is part and parcel of their effort, inseparable, any name that avoids that connection will be disengeneous. Islamic extremists? Won;t like it.

Islamic fundamentalists? That's a broad brush.

The New Caliphaters? That seems to be a key kernel of their effort. Think muslims will like that? I doubt it.

I guess we could them Meepzorps, and let people form their own definitions without baggage of a previous word.

Last post for a bit. But I continue to be amazed by the liberal hatred of the term Islamofascism, if only because They Who Are Not Named (meepzorps) pretty stand against everything liberal. I have a hard time finding a group that ought to draw the hatred of liberals everywhere than the meepzorps.

I have a hard time finding a group that ought to draw the hatred of liberals everywhere than the meepzorps.

You're projecting your own personality disorder onotoliberals. Unlike you, liberals do not react to those different from them with kneejerk hatred.

Nads:

And Zionazi is so much more *syballant* than Islamofascist, too.

I think we have a winner here ...

:)

Bob

A modest proposal:

Since so much energy is being expended on denouncing whatever term Bush and/or the right wing comes up with, why don't we come up with a better one here on this comment thread? My contribution and/or suggestion - since the KKK was the closest thing this country had to a mass fascist movement, and self deprecation might take away some of the sting our Islamic friends are feeling, why not call the bad guys IslamoKlansmen? Can the delicate little flowers of Dearborn object to this?

Islamic fundamentalists? That's a broad brush.

How about Militant Fundamentalist Extremists.

I think that fits perfectly.

Works for the Tim McVeighs and James Dobsons of the world too.

The New Caliphaters?

That's a feature of bin Laden. But I think there's a wide range of wack-jobs out there who will happily kidnap and behead infidels. Militant Extremist Fundamentalist fits better.

As was widely discussed immediately post-9/11 - the whole "new Caliphate" thing doesn't appeal to MOST muslims (because then the Sunnis would have to unite with the Shia - ain't ever gonna happen, no way no how), and the Persians and Arabs and Turkmen, and zillions of other ethnicities would also have to happen (probably not very realistic).

WWJD: Americans wanted the President to do the right thing and fight Islamofascism.
Damn straight kill him some Iraqizoids! Thems people been oppressing America fer waaaayyy too long!! What with all our oil trapped under their godless nation.

It's remarkable that anyone needs to be told this, but obviously they do. So now they've been told. 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. Following their lead will merely dig you into an even deeper hole than you've already dug all by yourself.

If you think that they need to be told, then I have to ask you, "What do you think they intended to accomplish using the word?" I think that we, who have been blown away by the cloddishness of this administration these last six years, keep thinking they are inept. I suggest to you that they are not inept, and that they have been wildly successful at everything they've done.

They used exactly the right word to achieve what they intended.

These aren't statesmen, working towards world peace. They do not want peace - they want a wider stage of hostilities. It's after that wider stage of hostilities that what Bush-Cheney are after happens: The U.S. will control oil in the Middle East. Whether it's through the Saudis (after antagonizing and then annihilating all in the Middle East whom object and join the opposition against the U.S.) or some other way, it's pretty obvious that's what Bush-Cheney are after. It's the only way that "fighting them over there" makes any sense at all.

Read Juan Cole, August 6, 2006, "One Ring to Rule Them." Read Sy Hersch.

Bush and Cheney want to broaden the conflict to include Iran and Syria. They have wanted to do this, they have intended to do this, since, at least, Bush's "axis of evil" SOTU speech. We know now, as we did not know then, that Bush was looking for any excuse to attack Iraq BEFORE 9/11/01.

Everybody knows that Bush attacked Iraq with insufficient troops and had no plan to rebuild the country. This keeps coming up every 3 months since "Mission Accomplished," and nothing changes. Nobody has yet to ask Bush or Rumsfeld, "The situation gets worse there, you keep saying that we're 'staying the course,' and that you're not going to be doing anything differently. . . . what is it that you're hoping is going to change?" The follow-up to whatever the answer Bush or Rumsfeld give should be "HOW???"

If past is prologue for future, and everything that this administration had done these last six years has been for the enrichment of the upper class, the dismantlement of (by bankrupting) government), and using the vestments of power (keeping the nation at war) for the continual rule by the corporate power behind the Conservatives (AND if I'm wrong, and Rove isn't able to steal the election), Bush will need a spectacular October surprise.

I'm sure that he and Rove have a series of "spectacles" they can set off, if they have to. Such as killing Osama bin Laden. Grudgingly. Bush only "accomplishes" something in his War on Terror when he must for political survival or gain. I think a more accurate name for it is "The Grudging War."

The rest of the time, Bush-Cheney and the GOP are in pillage-mode on America.

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?

RSM, I think you miss the point and you need to forget what you think you know about “liberals” and their tendencies. Maybe it would help you if you imagine GWB, from the Bully Pulpit, using the term “Christian-fascists”, and implying that it is one of the major problems of the world, and that we must go to war against it.

POTUS has no business carelessly using language, especially when it alludes to religion or ethnicity. He and his “crusade-crowd”, working toward a “New Middle East” via “Infinite Justice” are rightly seen as arrogant and prejudiced. To argue otherwise is to insist that they are merely “Infinitely Ignorant”.

And by the way, you should have capitalized “muslims” the way did “Christian” and “Jewish”. (OK, that was just a cheap shot... I trust).

OBF:

Very critical point. The Caliphate ideology will never appeal to anything more than a handful of Sunni extremists because of all the divisions that exist in the Muslim world.

And the term to use? Quite simple -- the one I started using my second day on the NYT Iraq forum way back before the invasion.

IslamIST extremists. Note the "ist."

This won't offend Muslim-Americans, because they understand the Islamism advocated in many of their countries of origin would never ever fly in a country like America, with the Establishment Clause. Islamism is the political ideology cobbled out of certain not-at-all universal readings of Islam. It also avoids denigrating the religion, which "IslamIC extremists" might connote -- as if there were something intrinsic about all flavors of Islam that leads straight into suicide terrorism (heh, run that one by a Sufi or an Ismaili). Suicide is haram -- forbidden -- in Islam, and most traditions of Islam echew resistance against secular rulers, even tyrannical ones, in the interest of social harmony.

Which is why Sayyid Qutb had to come along and upset the theological applecart by reviving barbaric and pre-medieval doctrines from the age when Islam was bent on world conquest.

Bob

from http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200601%5CCUL20060113c.html

"Killing an adulterer, even if he is a Muslim is okay. Killing a Kaffir (infidel) who is fighting you is okay. Killing a Kaffir for any reason you can say it is okay even if there is no reason for it," the jury heard Hamza say in a video of his September 1999 sermon, entitled "Adherence to Islam in the Western World."

In it, Hamza argued that Islamic beliefs should be spread with the help of the sword. "Dawa (propagation of Islam through word and action) needs a sword next to it and also needs effort,". . .

Hamza added that those selling alcohol should be persuaded to come to the mosque. "Make sure that the person who gave him the licence for that wine shop doesn't exist anymore on the Earth. Finish him up. Give him Dawa. If he doesn't respect Dawa, kill him," he said.

Hamza told his supporters that the fight to establish a global Khilafah (Islamic state) would be a "long bloody way" and divided into phases. The first, he said, was known as "the needle of bleeding the enemy."

"We ask Muslims to do that, to be capable to bleed the enemies of Allah anywhere, by any means," Hamza said. "You can't do it by nuclear weapon. You do it by the kitchen knife, no other solution. You cannot do it by chemical weapons. You have to do it by mice poison."

"Imagine you have only one small knife ... you have to stab him here and there until he bleeds to death, until he dies," the video showed Hamza saying.

According to Hamza's speech, such a fight should continue "so on and so forth, until you see the Khilafah sitting in the White House ruling from there."

The jury also heard the cleric dismiss Britain as a "toilet" and describe brothels, courts, banks that charge interest, video shops and wine sellers as being targets worthy of attack by Islamic militants.

Hamza also claimed western democracies are in a "freefall" because they had given too much personal freedom to their citizens. "It is falling down, it is crumbling now," he said.

"The society is crumbling because of democracy - because it gives freedoms to the silly people who do not know how to use freedoms and they end up destroying themselves, their family, their country, their morals, their even humanity," said Hamza.

Speaking of USAmerican fascists, let's not forgot the attempted fascist coup by US industrialists:

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Attempted_Coup_Against_Franklin_D._Roosevelt

Allah forgive America.

51% - simple majority
60% - majority
66% -
70% - enough to pass a constitutional amendmend.

Vast majority.

Anyhow, Robertson does espout Christian dress codes in state law.

Sheesh.

...I didn't respond to thomas1 until just now, so how he put me in his list I dunno.

Persecution complex, I guess.

There is one other point.

Bush (and Cheney, but specifically Bush) doesn't care if he's liked, or popular. That really is part of what made him attractive to the power that put him in the White House. "Wanting to be liked" wasn't going to get in the way of doing and saying terrible things to people.

So the more Americans react negatively to what the Bush administration is doing, the more that Bush and Cheney will ramp it up (increase and speed it up). They'll speed it up not because they're having second thoughts, but because they know that the American people are getting wise to what's going on, waking up, and Bush-Cheney have to get it off the front pages before any organized movement can coalesce to stop them.

That's how Bush & Cheney have gotten away with it so far. Too much heat on Israel in Lebanon? Agree to the cease-fire, wait a few days before giving Israel the go-ahead (on a "take out the trash-Friday") to do a massive operation, down and dirty. If Hezbollah doesn't retalliate, go quiet for a few days until the furor dies down. And then do it again.

This works very well for Bush and Cheney. Nobody, least of all the American citizens, has stopped them.

I haven't responded to him either, and yet I am on the list.

He's our pet troll. If people would stop petting him, he would stop humping their legs.

IslamIST extremists. Note the "ist."

Christianists

Confucianists

Scientologists

Buddhists!? Must be Shinto.

cld:

Exactly. That kind of lunatic Islamism is at base a terror of modernity. But remember that a scathing critique of modernity is inherent *within* modernity, as well. We on the left practice our own jihad against forces of decadence and reaction. Nothing wrong with jihad (struggle) in and of itself. Life without jihad properly understood would be a meaningless, amoral submission to rule by the strongest.

The trick is to pull out the kernel of truth in these firey sermons and make educable Muslims (those that haven't completely succumbed to indoctrination) realize that it is the very freedoms of Western societies that allow them to make and publicize their claims.

Bob

The Trash Hauler said it best:

Lazy Thinking.

Now, we could move on from there and discuss ways to mitigate the political damage this term is causing but, instead, we get those who think the term fits just fine (kinda, sorta, if you change that definition and adapt this idea and generally ignore culture, politics and history).

And then there's Thomas1 (or whoever) posting distracting, tangential BS every five minutes (Satan?!?!?). That's just bad manners.

This is what always bugged me about these fundie Christians. I couldn't give a crap about their religious beliefs but why do they always have to be so freakin' rude?

Hostile:

No. Islamism is a term quite understood by Muslims and Muslim societies to specifically mean political Islam apart from the religion itself.

No analogue to those others isms you mentioned, because the church / state boundary in all flavors of Islam is much weaker than in nearly all other religions.

It is what it is. No point in trying to sugarcoat reality here with false equivalencies.

Bob

Well said, bob.

But there's still the rest of them, and they have it wrapped in a religious doctrine that admits to no serious conversation outside itself, and that is on top of cultural norms arising from societies where honor is the central conception of life, where anything but victory is humiliation.

That was responding to the one above.

FOM: I think I understand Trashhauler point about lazy thinking. Stephen Hawking said some philosophers of science dismissed his work by labeling it with a term that "obviously" deserved dismissal.

But I'm afraid that some Bush supporters that I know personally via frequent close up contact most certainly deserve some bad labels like "racist." And I have to ask myself: "Why do all the obvious/no doubt about it/upfront racist that I know vote Republican? And they "hate" Democrats, even if they once were Democrat.

This I know. And I think I know why. They certainly give me lots of clues.

rmck1;

IslamIST extremist. Check.

Sounds good - but too narrow.

How about:
Fundamentalist Extremist.

It has to include the Tim McVeighs and George W Bushes of the world.

cld:

No, that's a kind of superficial reading, although I think we agree with that the tribalism is really more the root of the problem than the religion -- which after all is (like all religions to an atheist/agnostic) only a way for a people to explain their worlds to themselves.

But it's not a simpleminded dichotomy of dishonor = death, either. Muslims humiliate each other constantly (ever hear two Arabs insult each other? It makes "the dozens" which evolved in African-American culture into gangsta rap look like a couple of Victorians quibbling while sipping tea). There are often arrangements allowing the loser in any given conflict to walk away with some dignity intact -- even if it is only the illusion of dignity.

If what you said were strictly true, the entire pan-Arab nation would have committed suicide after the '67 war.

Bob

The Word Police!!!

The reason Bush uses the word "Islamofascist" is to hide his own fasicism and that of his followers. What is the Republican/Rove MO? Accuse your opponents of doing what your doing.

Also, please tell me who was killed by James Dobson?
Posted by: Thomas1 on August 21, 2006 at 9:23 PM | PERMALINK

Any faith I had in the legitimacy of religion.

Is anybody else getting tired of being lectured by Muslims?

Seriously. If they spent half as much time lecturing the terrorists and crazies INSIDE Muslim mosques as they do lecturing the rest of us, I'd have more sympathy.

OBF:

Well, I'll have disagree that we need an all-inclusive term, because I do believe that Islamist extremism is a different breed of cat than other extremisms.

The IRA sure did love to blow up English banks -- but they also called the authorities and warned them beforehand to evacuate.

And even the most hardened Communist guerrilla pressed up against a tactical wall wouldn't strap a suicide belt to himself, expecting Paradise as the reward. Extremist Christians (McVeigh was a radical "Jeffersonian" anarcho-libertarian, not a Christian) who have no problem assassinating abortion providers would certainly consider it a grave sin if they did it with a suicide weapon.

No question about it -- the specifically Islamist content to this breed of extremism needs to be duly noted with its own term.

Bob

I take it the use of "fuck" and other cussing is not "rude" to you?
Posted by: Thomas1 on August 21, 2006 at 9:19 PM | PERMALINK

Fuck yeah.

It's fucking rude.

And fuck you.

In both eye-sockets.

And please fuck off. Charlie.

Kevin Drum refused to run the Danish cartoons that caused Muslims to riot a few months ago.

Now, Kevin Drum wants us to use only CAIR-approved language when speaking about terrorists.

Weird to see Kevin Drum submit to Sharia Law.

who was killed by James Dobson?

Ok, and who has been personally killed by any particular Muslim religious leader you can name?

Weird to see Kevin Drum submit to Sharia Law.
Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on August 21, 2006 at 9:39 PM | PERMALINK

Osama bin Laden wanted US Troops out of Saudi Arabia.

Osama bin Laden wanted a religious war between muslims and the christian west.

Osama bin Laden wanted high oil prices so that the treasure Allah bestowed upon muslims could be weilded as a club against the west.

Weird to see George W Bush submit to the will of Osama bin Laden. He talked so tough. . .

The perfect storm.

A Racist Crusader war for Oil.

Mission Accomplished!

Frequency Kenneth:

But it's not weird *at all* to see you spouting your standard-issue blithering fright rhetoric.

Is it? :)

Devo had your number in the song Blockhead:

Stock parts :)

Bob

I'm really sorry I missed this thread, because the subject is near and dear to my heart.

I'm sure it was very civil.

enozinho:

It's worth reading the entire thread, actually. Some of the comments have been really insightful.

Not really a troll fest -- if you discount the disproportionate contributions by He Who Shall Remain Nameless :)

Bob

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.

Good advice. Does anyone really doubt why? Because those fever swamps are teeming with bigots.

the Constitution Party does not want theocracy

do they know this?

It is our goal to limit the federal government to its delegated, enumerated, Constitutional functions and to restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations.

The Constitution of the United States provides that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language.

that's hardly a statement against theocracy. and all good wingnuts know how to parse "original intent".

[you] and the following ALL replied to my posts

thanks for pointing that out. i'll stop doing that. starting.... now.

Red State Mike:

The debate is not whether some of the people we're fighting in the GWOT have fascistic tendcencies or could be fairly judged as fascists. Frankly, I think that's a genuine debate, not an obvious answers. For example, there's been plenty of suspicion, but no real evidence to date, that Hamas and Hizballah want to create religious dictatorships in their countries, but their actual behavior so far has largely conformed to democratic and pluralistic expectations within their own countries. We very much want them to be fascists, because that would morally clarify them for us - and because their inflammatory and violent language *tends* to be a hallmark of poor democracy. But a historical tendency is not a historical rule, and democracies can be prone to violent language themselves. I'll say it frankly - in some cases I think that Islamic militarism and the democratic movement are on the same side in the ME, against us. And it's a mistake.

But back to the main topic:

Certainly some groups the GWOT - Al-Quieda, obviously - can be fairly described as fascist. But that's not the point. The point is this - what is the purpose of using pejorative terms to describe our enemies in public? Is there really any serious doubt among the American people as to whether Osama Bin Laden and his movement are a bunch of violent, intolerant, fascist thugs? Of course not. American muslims are uncomfortable becuase the term "Islamofascist" is a broad and loose term. Who is an islamofascist and who is not is debatable. As I've just demonstrated. When someone uses a loose pejorative when referring to people of your ethnicity and background, of course you feel fear and suspicion that the person in question would apply it to you, personally - regardless of whether you, personally, deserve the label. Of course American Muslims resent that.

I hope it's too blindingly obvious that increasing resentment among American Muslims for no concievable strategic or operational gain, makes no sense. It's worse than that. It's a dehumanization mechanism. It's red meat to the base. It's trite, and it's counterproductive. It's the inversion of empty boasting.

It accomplishes nothing. It's enough to know who our enemies our without waving it around like a flag, like a pedestrian salesman of moral judgement.

两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影 美女写真 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 黄色电影 最新电影 性爱电影 免费小电影 性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 裸露美少女 av美女 色情电影 同志图库 成人视频 美女漏点 两性写真视频 美女阴部 少女乳房 自拍裸照 强奸视频 裸体美女 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 色情图片下载 激情图片 激情小电影 性感写真 淫荡妹妹 做爱小电影 舒淇写真 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人图片 人体写真 美女手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道阴毛屁股 美女图库 口交肛交图片 强暴图片 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记 汤加丽写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书金瓶梅 性爱文学 偷拍走光图 漂亮美眉图片 泳装写真 乳罩内裤图片 成人贴图 情趣内衣 性生活电影 作爱自拍 艳情图片 性交电影下载 做爱视频 性福电影 人体艺术 明星合成裸照 裸女贴图 黄色小说下载 成人小说下载 乱伦图片 七彩铃音 经典铃声 飞利浦手机铃声 西门子铃声 东信手机铃声 手机铃声图片 诺基亚手机铃声 qd铃声下载 手机彩铃 彩铃下载 移动彩铃 免费彩铃 手机炫铃下载 移动炫铃 联通手机彩铃 联通手机铃声 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通手机炫铃 联通彩铃 中国联通彩铃 联通彩铃网站 联通炫铃 中国联通炫铃 联通炫铃网站

bob,

Some time ago I read something about the distinction between classical arabic and bedouin warfare and modern western warfare. It was that the Islamic armies would score successes and quickly vanish, or send in a continual parade of low-level harassment just short of outright war over a long period of time and this was really successful against Western militaries that were heavier and relied more on massed units and set battles until sometime during the late middle ages when they developed economically enough to support really large campaigns determined to eliminate their antagonist at the source.

It went on to conclude that this attitude of total victory was deeply insulting to the Arabs and Bedouins because in their tactics there had always been the unspoken ideal everyone living to fight another day which was all about honor.

The distinction then worked out to, in a world where everyone lives to fight another day, war is the normal and perpetual state, where for the West a conclusion and end of war is the desired state.

Red State Mike, for what it's worth, I think the people equating Republicans to fascists on this thread are trying to make a point that authoritarian tendencies can be found in every culture, but it is nevertheless an obvious awkward, ill-fitting stretch.

I'm tired of the troll-bashing and loaded rhetoric from overzealous lefists on this sight. I've clearly argued above that I don't like the term Islmamofascist in public debate, but some people here I might agree with on substance, I think need to remove the beam from their eye in reflexively trashing people who disagree with them.

Bob:

You're right. Not really a troll-fest. I've been out of the country for two weeks and I've noticed a measurable decrease in the intensity of the Troll-on-Bush loving.

My two cents is that bellumregio had it right up-thread that it's a not-so-catchy propaganda phrase. Right-winger's big problem on this subject is that they think there is some kind of magic word or formula that will instantly convince everyone that we are "good" and they are "evil", thus causing millions of new recruits to America's White Christian (but totally not fascist) Army, which they will dutifully cheer on from their Aeron chairs (because watching other people's kids die on TV can cause chaffing).

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

Life is so simple for you, isn't it, down there with the ants and spiders? Anyone who disagrees with you is one hundred percent with the enemy you choose and name. But life has never been like this anywhere. You are living in a dream world; too bad it's such a lousy dream.

For example, there's been plenty of suspicion, but no real evidence to date, that Hamas and Hizballah want to create religious dictatorships in their countries, but their actual behavior so far has largely conformed to democratic and pluralistic expectations within their own countries.

Well, I recommend applying Occam’s Razor here. They have very specific complaints that have endured through time and which they seem to consistently use to press their points and recruit fresh blood to their cause.

For example: the Israelis have settled and are apparently preparing to keep land that the whole world says does not belong to them. This is a sure fire 24/7 provocation that’s guaranteed to inflame and endure.

I'm on a list! I never knew it would be like this.

Bravo, cld. If you test your premise against observed reality of the current and recent past Middle East conflict, it explains quite a bit of behavior that otherwise appears "crazy" to a Western view.

'Islamofascism' is just a clunky term, from the same typewriter that gave us 'Department of Homeland Security'. Plain old 'fascism' fits the idea just fine, but the Republicans seem to think a distinction is called for. Perhaps lest it draws too much attention to James Dobson.

James "radical cleric" Dobson just does not care for people who "are not like him", i.e., their religious views differ.

Such people are "ungodly" and hopeless, therefore he owes them nothing, not even an acknowledgement of their humanity. He's totally lost, his religion has confused him irreparably.

glasnost:

Well honestly, while I've defended the use of Islamist extremism as a cogent term to describe a very specific form of danger against some of my usual confreres here who'd like to see an equivalence with religious extremism in general -- I have to argue that "Islamic Fascism" is a term that only parses on the most superficial of levels.

Authoritarian? Sure. Evoking a glorious past lost in the mists of history by a conspiracy of global enemies? Check. Requiring a need to put state before self? Of course.

But beyond these things, Islamism as a religious ideology answers a different need than did Fascism -- which is, at base, a quest for cosmic justice. And because this need is otherworldly, not material, it won't be answered by successful and prosperous Muslim societies, the way the success of Hitler digging his country out of a global depression seemed to vouchsafe the early success of Nazism. The Iranian people might be getting sick to death of mullah rule and religious police after a generation -- but the hardline fanatics awaiting the Hidden Imam will not go away any faster than our own Christian extremists awaiting the Rapture.

Bottom line: We can cogently defeat Nazism on the battlefield and show to the German people how false it was.

This cannot be accomplished against Islamist extremism through either military might or soft-power cultural colonization. We can't win this war with rap music and Tommy Hilfiger the way we ultimately won the Cold War with bluejeans and Marlboros ...

Bob

Perhaps we can win the war with water.

If I were running for president I'd recommend a plan to create giant desalination stations completely surrounding the Middle East, and then extending it to surround the whole desert region, with the goal of turning the desert into a rain forest.

An American presidential candidate who even just talked about that would go far.

cld:

That's very interesting, and if true -- it means that Muslims got the idea of total, genocidal battlefied defeat from the Western armies.

In that case, I'll take the Bedouin warrior tradition of living to fight honorably another day over our own totalistic spasms of bellus interruptus.

Bob

But Dobson does love a man in uniform.

Plain old 'fascism' fits the idea just fine

We've been happily living with fascism in the ME for years, it was only when non-state actors decided to achieve their goals through terrorism that it became a problem, from our perspective anyway.

If you need a term, Jihadism would be my choice. The idea that Jihad also has other meanings is bumper-sticker PR that we Muslims have been slinging for years. When someone picks up a gun to fight for Islam, they are doing Jihad. Our biggest problem is dealing with people who see Jihad as the only viable method to achieve their goals, whether they be altruistic or malevolent.

bob,

Bellus interuptus means we don't have to get married, stuck in a dead-end job, one bathroom, thirty kids, and the local maniac trying to unburden us by getting the kids to kill themselves.

Perhaps a simple view, but I've always thought the term was designed for domestic consumption. Saddam=Hitler, Islamofascist, etc.

WW2 is remembered as a "good" war, especially by those of us that were born in its aftermath. It also was fairly conclusive. It makes sense to me that Pres. Bush would want us to make this association.

Unfortunately, the term "Islamofascist" may clutter up our thinking.

This week's revelations surrounding the UK terror plot targeting U.S. bound airliners once again focused attention on the phenomenon of "homegrown terrorism." And just as in the aftermath of last November's street riots in France, a flood of analysis seeks to explain the threat of radical Islamic extremism in Europe and its relative absence in the United States.

For an analysis of why commentators of all political stripes have it wrong, see:
"Homegrown Terrorism in the U.S. and Europe."

The Iranian people might be getting sick to death of mullah rule and religious police after a generation -- but the hardline fanatics awaiting the Hidden Imam will not go away any faster than our own Christian extremists awaiting the Rapture.

Bob,

Exellent post.

Shouldn't there also be a catchy new name for the Bushboys?

Maybe something like

"I-slam-yo-feces"

enozinho:

What do you think of Islamist extremism?

Seems to sidestep the jihad-as-merely-struggle issue.

Bob

OBF:

Politely skullfuck a Jeezoid troll for civility!

:)

Bob

Aww, jeez, I had to go and snark that snark right after Thomas quoted my post, apparently in support.

Sorry, Thomas.

Bob

cld:

Thirty kids and one bathroom, jeebus ...

Reminds me of Monty Python's The Meaning of Life when the Catholic father (Michael Palin) looks forlornly all around his hovel of a living room crammed standing-room-only with children and goes:

"I just can't support you anymore. Time to sell some of you off for medical experiments."

Bob

"If you need a term, Jihadism would be my choice. The idea that Jihad also has other meanings is bumper-sticker PR that we Muslims have been slinging for years. When someone picks up a gun to fight for Islam, they are doing Jihad. Our biggest problem is dealing with people who see Jihad as the only viable method to achieve their goals, whether they be altruistic or malevolent."

Enozinho,

Sitting here reading the thread I was thinking that what we need here is a 'real' Muslim to explain 'jihad' as it relates to Islam. I had the misfortune (I think) of listening to Robert Spencer on C-span last night. He has recently written a book (never caught the title) which purports that jihad is central to Islam, and is what separates Islam from other major world religions. Can you talk about jihad a bit more?
Is it, as you imply, a last resort measure except for those who find violence a reward in itself of sorts? Or is it the favored and natural response to a variety of threats from 'non-believers?'

From reading this thread, it seems many people misuse (or perhaps misunderstand) the word "fascism" even worse than the term "islamofascist" bends it. It is possible to have some characteristics similar to fascism and still not be fascist. For example, First Lady Clinton's health care scheme, even if it might have benefited people, had a fascist-like element, i.e., government directing the priorities of a privately held industry. That still doesn't make Senator Clinton a fascist. Similarly, many groups described as being fascist in this thread are also not fascist, simply because they want the government to accept their beliefs.

Oh, and for somebody waaay up thread, may I suggest that one possible difference between an ISLAMOFASCIST (as meant by the President) and a RAPTUREFASCIST (whoever they might be) is that a RAPTUREFASCIST is probably unlikely to issue a fatwa demanding your death.

doubting Thomas1:

Shit, remember that guy ... Hager I think his name was ... that Bush appointed to some position that made him a highly visible pediatrician and gynecologist?

He talked a lot about Jesus' love for women and wrote some inane book about Christian gynecology.

Yeah, well women's groups called him Hagar the Horrible.

In a long and bitter divorce fight with a wife who apparently suffered Stockholm Syndrome for years, she finally admitted how she was raped up the ol' scenic route by this guy all throughout their marriage. She, umm, didn't enjoy it at all and kept trying to get him to stop. After awhile he'd start doing it to her while she was asleep. Apparently this mongoloid had something approaching a literal addiction to anal sex.

Can anybody provide me a link? I'm not even sure I'm spelling the guy's name right (Hagar the Horrible was indeed the nick, though), so I'm not sure I can google it ...

Bob

Is anybody else getting tired of being lectured by Christians?

Seriously. If they spent half as much time lecturing the militia-crazies INSIDE Christian churches as they do lecturing the rest of us, I'd have more sympathy.

grape_crush: Those people whom you call a "bulwark against al Qaeda" seem to be awful sensitive to criticisms against any Moslems.
...
Just as some Christians are hypersensitive to criticism...Your point is?
...
Are you sure they are a bulwark and not a breeding ground?
...
Bulwark. Within 2-3 generations the kids are Americanized and devout Muslims will complain like devout Christians about how the younguns don't go to mosque, watch too much tv, and wear crappy clothes.
...
In Michigan an awful lot of them think that the WTC attacks were a CIA/Mossad plot.
...
'Awful lot'? Cite your source, please...Otherwise I get to call bullshit on your bullshit statement.

First off, although I personally do not object to "Islamofascism", I do agree with others that "Islamist" is a better word. However, Bush has since 9/11 distinguished between most Moslems who are peaceful and the rest, so his use of "Islamofascist" clearly denotes a minority.

Now, I was thinking of the way that CAIR objects to most criticisms of even any Moslems, but you are right that Christians are hypersensitive to criticisms. Nobody pays attention to the Christians who whine about being called names, and nobody should pay any more attention to the Islamofascists like CAIR who object to being called names.

"awful lot" comes from a series of election reports in Michigan in the 2002 and 2004 elections. Figures from polling put the figure above 25%. Are you sure that you want sources?

"bulwark" works in the US, at least for now, for the most part, though there are Islamic charities that have funded terrorists, and some Moslems have been tried and imprisoned for terrorist activities. In Europe, "breeding ground" is at least as appropriate.

In this country almost anybody can be called a "nazi" or "fascist" -- "Bushitler" and all that. I don't see why "Islamofascists" should be exempt.

glasnost
The debate is not whether some of the people we're fighting in the GWOT have fascistic tendcencies or could be fairly judged as fascists. Frankly, I think that's a genuine debate, not an obvious answers. For example, there's been plenty of suspicion, but no real evidence to date, that Hamas and Hizballah want to create religious dictatorships in their countries, but their actual behavior so far has largely conformed to democratic and pluralistic expectations within their own countries. We very much want them to be fascists, because that would morally clarify them for us.

I'd have to disagree. It ought to be as morally clear as we need just based on their actions. Frankly, any name I think of pales next to their deeds, and so I'm just interested in something that is accurate. Islamist Extremists works well enough. But arguing is more fun than agreeing, so...

Bob
But beyond these things, Islamism as a religious ideology answers a different need than did Fascism -- which is, at base, a quest for cosmic justice. And because this need is otherworldly, not material, it won't be answered by successful and prosperous Muslim societies, the way the success of Hitler digging his country out of a global depression seemed to vouchsafe the early success of Nazism.

Again, going back to the Doctrine of Fascism...

Fascism sees in the world not only those superficial, material aspects in which man appears as an individual, standing by himself, self-centered, subject to natural law, which instinctively urges him toward a life of selfish momentary pleasure; it sees not only the individual but the nation and the country;...builds up a higher life, founded on duty, a life free from the limitations of time and space, in which the individual, by self-sacrifice, the renunciation of self-interest, by death itself, can achieve that purely spiritual existence in which his value as a man consists...

The conception is therefore a spiritual one, arising from the general reaction of the century against the materialistic positivism of the XIXth century...

Life as he understands it means duty, elevation, conquest; life must be lofty and full, it must be lived for oneself but above all for others, both near bye and far off, present and future...

Fascism believes now and always in sanctity and heroism, that is to say in acts in which no economic motive - remote or immediate - is at work.

Does this passage like a life devoted to jihad? Fascism is big on the eternal struggle, the neverending revolution.

(3) Positive conception of life as a struggle

(4) Struggle is at the origin of all things, for life is full of contrasts: there is love and hatred, white and black, day and night, good and evil; and until these contrasts achieve balance, struggle fatefully remains at the root of human nature. However, it is good for it to be so. Today we can indulge in wars, economic battles, conflicts of ideas, but if a day came to pass when struggle ceased to exist, that day would be tinged with melancholy; it would be a day of ruin, the day of ending. But that day will not come, because history ever discloses new horizons. By attempting to restore calm, peace, tranquility, or. A would be fighting the tendencies of the present period of dynamism. One must be prepared for other struggles and for other surprises. Peace will only come when people surrender to a Christian dream of universal brotherhood, when they can hold out hands across the ocean and over the mountains.

Trashhauler:

Oh c'mon, Trashy, HillaryCare whatever its flaws (and I personally
viewed it as a private insurance preservation program) is big
government liberalism, which is nothing remotely like Fascism.
And let me hasten to add that it's precisely the kind of
big-government liberalism that's avidly supported in Spain, Italy and
Germany -- three countries who are rather sensitive to charges of
Fascism and surely wouldn't allow their governments to head in that
direction -- as given by their manifestly different approaches to free
speech than, say, Britain -- which doesn't suffer those fears at all.

And oh -- I'd support single-payer healthcare in a heartbeat.

Does that similarly invalidate my civ-lib credentials and make me a
fellow traveller with Fascism along with Hillary?

Bob

trashhauler: "From reading this thread, it seems many people misuse (or perhaps misunderstand) the word "fascism" even worse than the term "islamofascist" bends it."

Hey, we agree on something!!!

Red State Mike:

Well, if you want to get *technical*, that's more like a warmed-over pseudo-Nietsczhean reaction to Immanuel Kant's famous essay Perpetual Peace (wherein, in the 1780s, Kant proposed the first idea for a League of Nations.) A great deal Fascist rhetoric (check Mussolini's Op-Eds as a journalist) is based on a running rant against Kant's prescient idea.

19th-century German philosophy was chock-full of attempts to recapture meaning from amoral positivism, and often took on pietistic tones.

But Liebensreform -- which Hitler fervently championed -- was closer to New Age anthropocentrism than the middle-class Bavarian religiosity in which he occasionally wrapped his rhetorical stinkbombs.

Kind of like, umm ... Ann Coulter, too.

Bob

Religious totalitarians says it all for me. They come in all stripes. They have ceded free will for the dictates of leader, and diminish at once dissenters to sub-human roles. "You are either for us or against us." Hmmmmmm. Cuts two ways!

In Indonesia the Islamists burn down the houses of worship of Christians, and assault and burn the people who support non-Islamist candidates. In view of the history of the word "fascism", it seems to me that "Islamofascist" is a fine word to denote those people.

republicrat:

In view of the history of *propaganda*, it might be nice to get that story at the ground level and not have to rely on thumbnail parsing from an obvious partisan.

Bob

Red State Mike:

In short, Fascism makes use of middle-class religiosity and hunger for traditionalism in a changing, industrializing world -- but for propaganda reasons, not for the core doctrine of Fascism itself, which exalts not any concept of God but the inherent TimeSpirit (and blame that puppy on Hegel) of that particular nation and/or people.

Bob

Bob wrote:

Oh c'mon, Trashy, HillaryCare whatever its flaws (and I personally viewed it as a private insurance preservation program) is big government liberalism, which is nothing remotely like Fascism. And let me hasten to add that it's precisely the kind of big-government liberalism that's avidly supported in Spain, Italy and Germany -- three countries who are rather sensitive to charges of Fascism and surely wouldn't allow their governments to head in that direction -- as given by their manifestly different approaches to free
speech than, say, Britain -- which doesn't suffer those fears at all.

And oh -- I'd support single-payer healthcare in a heartbeat.

Does that similarly invalidate my civ-lib credentials and make me a
fellow traveller with Fascism along with Hillary?
_______________

Now, now, Tom, I did say that just because her plan had one element of fascism, that didn't make Hillary one, didn't I?

Most people forget about the economic side of fascism, which purported to be a weird sort of amalgam of socialist and capitalist tendencies. Don't take the means of production outright, but control the production through government fiat. Best of both worlds, if you don't want to frighten the rich social elite. That's what Hillary intended, but she overplayed her hand with a touch too much coercion in the pot.

Those European plans are much more straightforward. Like them, of course, you'd go for a single payer plan in a heartbeat - you're an honest socialist. But that's not exactly what Mrs. Clinton's plan was - as always, her plan suffered from too much triangulation, by half.

So, no, that doesn't make you a fascist and it doesn't make Hillary a fascist, either. She just happened to hit on the same solution driven by the need to sell the thing in a strongly capitalist country.

Sorry, Bob, I called you Tom up there in the last post.

Well, Thomas, we all have our little faults, eh?

:)

Islam is not fascist in any way. The Caliphate equals the Holy Roman Empire. Fascism is a result of industrialization, mass media, economic upheaval, and a bullet proof ideology. Despotic, corrupt dictatorships, while having the brutality of what we recognize as mass murder similar to what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao achieved is still not the kind of corporatism Mussolini had in mind. A greater Arab nationalism based on religion, Jihad, Islamism, or any medieval religious fanatical fundamental extremism is not fascism. Nor is Islam or Isalamism nazism, which is based on a racial explanation of history. Islam is much like Christianity up to about the Renaissance, 1,300 years old and re-awakening, becoming aware of the world again. The inevitable (and dreaded) Reformation is going to happen. It was a bad time for Christian people, and it will be bad time for Islamic people. Many think Islamism could become a totalitarian force, mimicking the kind of society the West fantasizes about. Islam become Stalinism with everyone bowing seven times a day towards Mecca with video surveillance and Big Mullah hypnotizing the masses. Islam has a long way to go before it can master post-industrialization's authoritarianism. Islam is authoritarian. So are most other religions. Perhaps in future Islamists could become totalitarian, Christians did, but they will have to have a very long social development period before that happens.

The other problem is the subjugation by the West. This prevents Islamism from developing. Bin Laden seems to say that is his problem, our interference in other Islamic country's internal affairs, disrupting self-determination. The West is fearful of a resurgent Islamic culture and has, for a hundred years, tried to keep the Middle East under its power. Coups and paid off dictatorships have allowed the US and the West to dominate Middle Eastern society. The people of the Middle East are aware of all of the meddling, bribing, arming and assassinating the West has sponsored. Some have decided to use modern political terror techniques to fight back. These small groups do not have the industrial, social resources or ideological/historical purpose to create a totalitarian state. At least not for another few hundred years.

Republicrat, your post from 12:13AM is phrased as if this happens everywhere in Indonesia at all times. Of course, this is not the case. There is sectarian violence, to be sure, most prevalently in recent times on the large island of Sulawesi, but this should be seen mostly in the context of economic grievance and the residue of colonialism.

This is not related to jihadism except where Indonesian jihadists might exploit local unrest to reinforce their aims. In Bali, Hindus and Muslims coexist as they do in central Java. In Sumatra, there are pockets of Christians who've adapted the Dutch Reform Church into the local culture and live unthreatened lives.

You seem a little more interested in stirring up hatred against Muslims than you do in knowing what you're talking about.

It has apparently never occured to Kevin Drum that Bush might be right and CAIR might be wrong.

Trashhauler:

Okay, that's a fairly subtle analogy. And I completely agree with you -- HillaryCare failed because of too much triangulation by half, and yes, precisely to avoid upsetting elites, whether in the AMA or the private healthcare industry.

And yes -- her little collegium behind closed doors is what probably put the nail in the coffin, PR-wise at least. Although Bob Dole's insanely complex chart of it was kind of a masterstroke, to be perfectly honest ...

I do get nostalgic for the days when I could respect the GOP as worthy opponents rather than just blanching at disgust when Clelland's head gets morphed into Osama's ...

I never thought I'd ever say that I miss freakin' curmudgeonly ol' Bob Dole ...

As for the analogy to Fascism -- well, it's rather weak. If you can make it, then you can throw Bush's NSA warrantless wiretapping into that box, as well as extraordinary rendition and legalisms almost as tortured as the torture they support ...

Actually, come to think about it, I'd call HillaryCare a tad more metaphorical than the police state Bush is attempting to erect to keep America safe from shoe bombers and blowtorch artists.

Bob

Hostile wrote:

"Islam is much like Christianity up to about the Renaissance, 1,300 years old and re-awakening, becoming aware of the world again. The inevitable (and dreaded) Reformation is going to happen. It was a bad time for Christian people, and it will be bad time for Islamic people. Many think Islamism could become a totalitarian force, mimicking the kind of society the West fantasizes about."
______________

The danger, of course, is that we aren't in the 14th century and socio-political trends are much speedier than they once were. There is at least the theoretical possibility that an...unripe? No, make it inchoate... version of radical Islam gain control too rapidly for balancing forces to ameliorate its effects. Perhaps it is a good idea to give them an immediate alternative between religious radicalism and corrupt autocracy.

Trashhauler:

Islamist radicalism is not capable of running a state, though -- at least not the type that threatens the West. People point to Iran -- but power in Iran is extremely diffused through a whole variety of elites. At the end of the day, it's an extremely conservative regime -- and we are not threatened by conservative regimes but rather by unaffiliated radicals. Much is made of Iran's support of Hezbollah and their use of suicide terrorism -- but that plays out in the theater of conflict with Israel. No post-Iraqi invasion suicide bomber attacking Western targets other than Israel has been Shi'ite, if memory serves.

The caliphate fanatics are too rigid to administer a society, and so tend to self-cannibalize. What we need to do is to stop conflating this primarily Sunni/takfiri ideology with Islamist groups that merely seek greater representation for their people. The kind of bad, intolerant stuff that occurs in places like Indonesia, the Sudan and Nigeria I'd view as more a product of tribal culture than Islam per se.

Bob

Islamofascist rhymes with Judeobolshevik. Odd, that.

Andrew J. Lazarus:

Yeah, but Zionazi rolls off the tongue better than both :)

Bob

And hey -- truth be told, I'm a bit of a progrock Nazi, myself -- not that there's anything wrong with that :)

Bob

Trashhauler:

Taliban Afghanistan was a failed state -- a dysfunctional regime that only had diplomatic relations with ... heh, can you guess? ... Pakistan and Dubai.

Bob

you forgot poland.

Bob wrote:

"Actually, come to think about it, I'd call HillaryCare a tad more metaphorical than the police state Bush is attempting to erect to keep America safe from shoe bombers and blowtorch artists."
_______________

Oh, tosh, Bob. Bush isn't seeking any sort of police state. What he's doing is borrowing some police state methods, is all. The danger is that such methods might actually work well enough to become entrenched as a modus vivendi in the bureaucracy. That kind of stuff is tough to eradicate once it takes root. There's small chance of it, though. America still has to much belief in the ideals of the Enlightenment to have much truck with such things.

Even if for some strange reason they wanted to, the Administration could not force or inveigh us into anything so stupid because there is no ideological drive for a police state. Quite simply put, there is no accompanying social construct behind it, no compelling theoretical belief. Really, the idea that a police state would be palatable to anybody but a small fringe is as silly as the idea of xenophobic China exporting her ideology anywhere.

I know it's fashionable on the Left to play up such stuff. It's useful politics and it gets the blood boiling so. But pardon me if I don't get to exercised by it quite yet. History is replete with examples of moderate countries temporarily driven a bit wacko because of fear. In most cases, things go back to normal after the fever has passed.

In any case, should things get totally FUBAR, if anyone really sought to install a police state, it wouldn't be any blogosphere commandos who'd set things right. As always, It'll be hard-eyed men who don't believe the claptrap about force never solving anything and who ignore all the cumbayah stuff. But I shouldn't worry if I were you. None of the excesses we've seen recently are in any sense coherently organized or centrally motivated. As I said, it's handy for politics and jimdandy arguments, but that's about all there is to it. Hell, to implement half the crazy ideas presented here in this forum as alternatives would take more government coercion than anything put forth so far by the present Administration.

certainly the ambivialence of the right will do little to correct any impending bush-sponsored fascism. it becomes difficult to distance yourself from the focus point of their ideology who've they've been busily fellating for the past 6 years.

to envision these pussies being, presumably, those selfsame "steely-eyed men" of trashhauler's fanatasy is a little ... ridiculous.

Nads, I didn't mention any group in particular, nor did I suggest they would have any specific political orientation.

They might, and mostly likely would, come from many sources, though you might not recognize them. Not your sort at all. Mostly, they wouldn't be the sort who'd be impressed one way or another by crudities.

Anyway, remember, we're talking in extremis, now. And the world's a long ways off from any such thing.

They might, and mostly likely would, come from many sources, though you might not recognize them. Not your sort at all. Mostly, they wouldn't be the sort who'd be impressed one way or another by crudities.
Posted by: Trashhauler

you'd be surprised how insightful I can be ... ;)

"crudity" is variably defined. I find being lied into wars and having supposedly "civil" debates regarding the merits of rendition and torture to be fairly crude.

I'm certainly unwilling to debase myself into having those conversations with the sundry white trash elements that post here. I guess we all have our standards.

Trashhauler:

"too much belief in the ideals of the Enlightenment"? Germany is the country of Goethe, Schiller and Beethoven, and it had the most advanced social welfare administration in all of Europe. Though formed recently relative to more westerly parts of the Continent, German urban civilization was as advanced as any in Europe, and its university system was unmatched. Germans made highly significant contributions to science, technology, music, visual and performing arts.

And then one lousy deal after getting sucker-punched into a world war and a decade of hyperinflation, and they ran smack-dab into the arms of a brush-moustached Austrian postcard painter.

"It can't happen here" is the name of an early Frank Zappa song, not a political credo worthy of the name.

Gonna get a TV dinner and cook it up.
Gonna get a TV dinner and cook it up, cook it up.

You claim that there's no analogous ideological underpinning for Fascism in America as there was on the European continent. Yes, that's strictly-speaking true. And historically, we've seen much worse enacted in the name of an overreactive climate of fear. The Alien and Sedition Acts, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, the Comstock and Palmer raids, the Red scares at the turn of last century after McKinley's assassination and their resurrection in the 20s, the internment of Japanese-Americans during WW2, the shameful McCarthy era and HUAC, J. Edgar Hoover's legacy carried over to the Nixon justice department and COINTELPRO -- all were demonstrably worse than the current paranoia about terrorism.

Arguably unless, of course, you happen to be a Muslim.

And if you're a *Straussian*, well ... you don't have all that much respect for democracy to begin with. No, there's no more racialism like the European 20s. Nor is there an overt belief in corporate statism -- although in practical terms one *does* have to wonder about such a bloated Defense Department in that regard (Eisenhowered warned us, as you'll recall). So no ... we aren't precisely slouching towards Munich. More like, umm, Cleveland (or something).

Because in America we get Fascism Lite.

American exceptionalism replaces Germanic racial grandiosity. An ill-defined (and, in truth, nonexistent) unitary global Islamist conspiracy replaces the Jews.

Add a shamelessly state-enabled rampant corporatism and a proper crew of demagogues ... and seems to me like we're maybe one or two catastrophes away from something quite, umm, unprecedented in our history ...

But maybe I'm just another silly Leftist alarmist, who who knows, eh?

Bob

I'm worse than a Muslim. I'm a product of the Jesuits. ::grin::

It's true that a country's sins tend to be larger than a person's. But I happen to believe in this one.

So, "Take not counsel of your fears," Bob.

You'll live longer and your food will digest better.

Well, gotta go to work.

I find it hard to believe that reasonable people are offended by the word.

And I think being offended by the word indicates a lack of reasoning.

All this offense can be mitigated by simply choosing not to feel offended for no good reason.

I don't understand why a reasonable person would be offended.

All these people whining should grow up.

I find it hard to believe that reasonable Jewish people are offended by the word kike.

And I think being offended by the word indicates a lack of reasoning.

All this offense can be mitigated by simply choosing not to feel offended for no good reason.

I don't understand why a reasonable Jewish person would be offended.

All these Jewish people whining should grow up.....

*sarcasm, for those who don't get it*

D'oh Jones
I find it hard to believe that reasonable Jewish people are offended by the word kike...

*sarcasm, for those who don't get it*

Non sequitor. Kike is an ethnic slur.

If people kill in your name and you don't object, then you're a killer, too. That's how it works. Silence means assent. (Remember your trial scene from "A Man for All Seasons".)

If the Dobsons of the world don't want the tag of "killer", then they should object when people they support kill.

Leave it to the Democrats to pick the wrong fight again. It's not the language that is so obejectionable as it is the actual killing, just saying. But I suppose to a Democrat, if we stop refering to the killers as Islamo-fascists, maybe they'll stop killing us.

Also, I would prefer to see the outcry from the Dearborn Muslim community directed more towards the actions of their bretheren rather than the moniker, again, just saying.

Also, I am deeply offended when someone refers to white supremists. In fact, just mentioning it again......I think I need a moment. We're all so sensitive, you know.

"But maybe I'm just another silly Leftist alarmist, who who knows, eh?

Bob"

Ya think?

Nah, not you rmck1.

The Dearborn Muslim community may well be offended by the use of the term "Islamofascist", but as long as they keep voting Republican, who cares?

When you sign on with the right-wing carnival of buffoons and rednecks, this is what you get. Enjoy.

"....keep voting Republican, who cares?" - Irony

It's the republicans fault, that's right! I keep forgetting that.

Non sequitor. Kike is an ethnic slur.

So is raghead

Non sequitor. Kike is an ethnic slur.

So is raghead
Posted by: D'Oh Jones

Congrats. You are a Master Of The Obvious.

American exceptionalism replaces Germanic racial grandiosity. An ill-defined (and, in truth, nonexistent) unitary global Islamist conspiracy replaces the Jews.

Bob you must have a Phd from Harvard to come up with this self-loathing nonsense. It is pure intellectual garbage. American exceptionalism has been and remains the greatest force for good in the history of man. Nothing comes close.

There is nothing ill defined about Islamic facism. It is very well defined. Fortunately, with the collapse of the useful idiots in the MSM those outside Western Europe are well aware of the threat of Islamic Fascism.

It's become comical watching the Islamofascist manipulate the useful idiots in the west using PC. Muslims abhor PC but it's so easy. You can call a liberal anything except 'culturally insensitive'. That crime is simply too devastating to face.

It's so obvious they're toying with you fools. They are probing to find out just how stupid you are and how easily you can be pushed around. Clinton, Carter, Kofi Annan and the rest of the liberal elite were so charmed by Yasir Arafat. Too bad for them Yasir liked to play with fools. He could trash the West and promote terrorism all night and all day as long as he did so in arabic. The MSM would never report it.

Today we find out. Now we know all about Yasir and all about Bill and the rest of the useful idiots. We also know exactly what Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, The PLO and millions of others are all about.

The really bad news here for liberalism is your last outposts are very much at risk. Western Europe is in deep, deep trouble. Iran is visibly toying with the Europeans knowing they are not capable of fighting Islamic terrorism and with a relatively short wait the growing islamic minorities will force them to sue for mercy.

17 nations now have birth rates at or below 1.3. They are already weak. In a short matter of time they will be defenseless.

rdw
It's become comical watching the Islamofascist manipulate the useful idiots in the west using PC. Muslims abhor PC but it's so easy. You can call a liberal anything except 'culturally insensitive'. That crime is simply too devastating to face.

It's so obvious they're toying with you...probing to find out just how...easily you can be pushed around.

True, dat.

How about "Americanazi"? Just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it? And the current Republican party combines all the key elements of Nazism's nationalism, corporatism, statism, authoritarianism, militarism, and anti-liberalism.

It's the republicans fault

They ain't helpin', that's for sure.

17 nations now have birth rates at or below 1.3. They are already weak. In a short matter of time they will be defenseless.

The signal remark of a white supremicist.

disputo wrote:

"(quoting rdw) '17 nations now have birth rates at or below 1.3. They are already weak. In a short matter of time they will be defenseless.'

The signal remark of a white supremicist."
________________

Then too, population has always been an important element of geopolitical theory. But, admittedly, discussing it is not nearly as fun as name-calling.

The signal remark of a white supremicist."
________________

You are babbling. There's no suggestion or hint of a suggestion as to race. Apparently I am supposed to be intimidated with the PC charge. If you really think so you are a moron.

Then too, population has always been an important element of geopolitical theory. But, admittedly, discussing it is not nearly as fun as name-calling.

As in white supremicist?

Actually population size hasn't been all that critical. The Sun didn't set on the British Empire because there are so many Brits. The great technological and medical advancements of the Chinese, Muslims and Indians are almost non-existant yet they have so many.

The population issue is so critical in Europe because their birthrates are so abysmally low and unseen throughout history. The math is quite simple and certain. Worse it the fact the rates have been low for quite some time, continue to fall and sentiment indicators strongly suggest they will continue to drop inot the future.

There's no science here. There's no escaping the facts. Ethnic Western Europe is breeding itself out of existance at a rapid pace.

mustard,

The Nazi thing just doesn't work and never did. It only represents your lack of imagination and unhinged anger. It doesn't even work in Germany anymore where a sizeable segment of the population is refusing to assume the guilt you wish for them to carry around. While a large segment does still feel quilty they are mostly older and from the western part. Like Gunter Grass they are aging and losing credibility. You can be sure Gunter did not vote for Angela Merkel.

It's a great irony Germay and Italy are the most likely of the Western European states to avoid Islamic domination. PC only goes so far in these countries where they understand only fools make excuses for fascists. Look for Germany to re-arm in a very significant way.

Two post on the nationlreviewonline which address the catastrophic population issue facing Euope

Belgium [Andrew Stuttaford]

There's a useful update on the EU's host country from the Wall Street Journal including this interesting electoral snippet: "But then the Socialists began taking note of Belgium's Muslim community, some 500,000 strong. In Brussels, notes Joël Rubinfeld of the Atlantis Institute think tank, half of the Socialist Party's 26-member slate in the city's 75-seat parliament is Muslim." There's nothing wrong with that in principle (in fact as a measure of integration it can be seen as encouraging), but to read this sentence is to wonder who, exactly, is integrating whom: " In the commune of Molenbeek, longstanding Socialist mayor Philippe Moureaux has made Halal meals standard in all schools; police officers are also barred from eating or drinking on the streets during Ramadan."

Re: Belgium [Stanley Kurtz]

Andrew, thanks for the update on Belgium, and on the travails of Paul Belien's Brussels Journal. I posted a message for the Belgian government last week regarding their attack on The Brussels Journal.

Some statistics from The Netherlands, nearby, are of interest. Half of young big-city dwellers in The Netherlands now have a non-Western (often Muslim) background.

That's not a problem if there's genuine cultural integration. But such integration has notoriously failed. Put together the picture that excellent piece by Bret Stephens paints with the stats from The Netherlands and the implications are sobering, to say the least.

There are additional links at NRO. The situation in some cities is already desperate as the natives move out at times even emigrating. They're screwed and they know it. Their only hope is appeasement works. Would you have kids in that environment?

THEOFASCISTS - the entire universe of religious fruitcakes looking to impose their metaphysical and social folkways on the rest of the world, typically by violence.

Or something like that.

Or, to describe our new economic order where the middle class is shrinking at an alarming rate while a few at the top become richer than their wildest dreams:

Corporofeudalism.

(With apologies to SecularAnimist.)

Wooten, I'd consider thoroughly cleaning your clock, but as this thread is dead (with a new one up where we can talk about Islamism), it would amount to doing the cha-cha with Rosy Palm and her five sisters.

I'll leave you with this, though.

The fall of every empire throughout history was accompanied by whopping loads of hubris.

Hubris, Wooten. It's a Greek word.

Look it up.

Bob

rdw:

Oh and Wooten -- you know absolutely less than dick about Islam and its relation to Islamism.

Bob

The fall of every empire throughout history was accompanied by whopping loads of hubris.

Hubris, Wooten. It's a Greek word.

I'm sure you think there's a point there but you are mistaken.

America is not an empire but an idea and we have centuries upon ceturies to run. There is no threat on any horizon no matter how distant that could topple America.

Allow me to call your attention to todays WSJ Editorial page on fertility rates. As I've pointed out to you in the past it's not just European liberalism in decline but American liberalism as well. No stop pessimism is not conductive to breeding. Neither is abortion.

The Islamofascists will bully those who will allow themselves to be bullied. They'll stick with Western Europe.

rdw:

"Islamofascist" is a term that doesn't parse.

It's a bullshit propaganda buzzword. European fascist states had armies and industrial economies.

The *repressive* Muslim states are not only "our friends," but they're locked in a hard struggle with Islamists who -- hard as this might be for your tiny Republican mind to grasp -- represent the forces of popular sovereignty and democracy while the corrupt and tottering regimes of "our friends" (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States) are brutally repressive and -- ta da! -- fascistic.

Like I said, Wooten -- you don't know dick about dick.

Bob

"Theofascist" is actually pretty good.

Hitler and other fascists never hesitated to wallow in Christian religiosity when the occasion arose and the relation between Franco and Latin American fascists and the Catholic Church is all but symbiotic.

You just gotta laugh- Fascism is the melding of corporate and state power, aggressive militarism and over the top nationalism are other features, not to mention institutionalized racism.

Now let's see, what corporate sponsors have the crazy-ass Jihadis? Haliburton? Big Oil? Big Pharma? Big Insurance? errr no, already taken. Who wraps themselves in the flag and insists any dissent or dsagreement is tantamount to treason? Jihadis have no flag, or state for that matter. What armed forces do the Jihadis have and what countries have they invaded and occupied? Er, that sounds more like the jackass tossing around words like "Islamofascist".

And racist? Who keeps wanting to "profile" all Muslims? Who wants to read all our electronic commnication and enter our homes without warrants?

The entire term would be laughable of course if it were not for those who bandy it about, obviously they're the real fascists and a far greater danger to this country than some nutbars with C4.

You just gotta laugh- Fascism is the melding of corporate and state power

No it is not, at least not the corporation you're thinking of.

aggressive militarism and over the top nationalism are other features, not to mention institutionalized racism.

No it is not. Racism is not part and parcel with fascism.

Now let's see, what corporate sponsors have the crazy-ass Jihadis?

The word "corporation" used in the definition of fascism had a different meaning then the word does now. It meant "corpus", or everything would be under the state.

What armed forces do the Jihadis have and what countries have they invaded and occupied?

The Islamist Extremists include Hezbollah, which is considered the second most powerful Army in the Middle East. They essentially own South Lebanon. The Taliban and Al Qaeda owned Afghanistan until we kicked them out.

You don't like the term? Fine. But argue with the facts.

Red State Mike:

I'd call the Maronite Phalangist militias who massacred hundreds of Palestinians in a refugee camp a paramilitary group with strongly Fascist tendencies.

Hezbollah, not so much. Fascists aren't known for doing charity work for the indigent.

Hitler considered his indigent a disgrace, and shipped the enfeebled elderly, impoverished, disabled and feeble-minded off to concentration camps.

He didn't do this secretly, like the Final Solution at the end of the war. He did this to great patriotic fanfare prior to the war. He was culling the weak seeds out of the great German people.

Bob

Hey Red State,

Since your argument consists of "no it's nots" and obscure latin roots my reply is yes it is and eschew obfuscation. If you mean to argue the Jihadis have an army capable of projecting their power against us all I can say is step away from the koolaid, you've drunk too deeply.

And to deny the barely concealed fascist tendencies (no racism? How about scapegoats then- often of other ethnicities than the dominant class) of this government and the corporate corruption (lobbyists are wirting laws for ghawd's sakes) of same is to deny the nature of the true enemies of this country. But then that is exactly what I expect straw-man arguing apologists touting "facts" to do.

bob,

You are so liberal. You are all over the place with fascism. It can mean anythng you want it to mean. As RSM pointed out Fascism has zero to do with racism. It doesn't have anything to do murdering the weak anymore or less that dictorarships or other similiar forms of repressive, controlling governments.

By your new definition any group that attacks another has strong Fascists tendencies such as the Shites and Sunni's killing each other in Iraq. Apparently we have Fascists fighting Fascists.

I can see why you are soo pissed at GWB. What does he think he's doing stealing your line? I'm not so sure that's why Charles Krauthammer started using it but it's a good bet that's why he continues to use it. It generates even more discussion thus further elevating the grave danger in the minds of the American Public. Everyone equates Fascism with the evil of Hitler and he's accepted as the worst of the worst. We need to see Islamic Fundamentalists in the same way. They are the worst of the worst.

Hezbollah, not so much. Fascists aren't known for doing charity work for the indigent.

Hitler considered his indigent a disgrace, and shipped the enfeebled elderly, impoverished, disabled and feeble-minded off to concentration camps.

Yea he did, but again, Hitler's actions did not define fascism. He's just the poster boy for it. I don't see where in The Doctrine of Fascism is speaks to indigents, weak, etc.

Dave said...
Since your argument consists of "no it's nots" and obscure latin roots my reply is yes it is and eschew obfuscation. If you mean to argue the Jihadis have an army capable of projecting their power against us all I can say is step away from the koolaid, you've drunk too deeply.

Nice Straw Man, Dave. you asked "What armed forces do the Jihadis have and what countries have they invaded and occupied?" You said nothing about invading us.

Less handwaving and more precision in your arguments, please.

Dave,

You are even more liberal that Bob. See American Corporations as the enemy do you? Your freak show left town a long time ago. No politician with national ambitions would go near you with a 10 foot pole. It has to kill you the only credible Presidential candidate on the Democratic Side is a former board member of Walmart and had a much, much cozyier relationship with Tyson Chicken.

It's good to hear from you. You are the last of a dying breed and the Democratic Party needs you. The GOP actually needs you more. At a time when a majority of Americans work for a corporation and are incorporated themselves your old time populist crap is, well, old time populist crap. It even better you are so up front with your blame America 1st act. The math here is perfect. Your party gets to lock in the 20% of the stupid vote they already own and repel 70% of Americans. For some strange reason they don't like to be called racist by some sanctimonious ass.

Keep up the good work. You'll never be as effective as Michael moore but every bit helps!

rdw
For some strange reason they don't like to be called racist by some sanctimonious ass.

Heh

rdw:

> You are so liberal.

And you are so conservative -- except you're not. You're more like
a right winger whose core ideology is less important than being in
power. Ideologically, you're more diverse than you credit yourself.

> You are all over the place with fascism. It
> can mean anythng you want it to mean.

Absolutely not. I've left several messages which describe the
essential ingredients of Fascism. *You're* the one attempting to
twist it into accomodating a handful of stateless religious fanatics.

> As RSM pointed out Fascism has zero to do with racism.

Fascism in all cases is characterized by a kind of hypernationalism
which both glorifies its people into mythic heroic actors of history
and demonizes its opponents both internal and external through a
variety of historical conspiracy theories. This *inevitably* leads
to racist/racialist theories of history and racial oppression.

What do you think the Maronite (Christian) Phalangists -- considered
Fascist by most commentators -- thought of the humanity of the
Palestinians they mowed down with machine guns in a Lebanese
refugee camp? That was an act worthy of Nazi Germany.

> It doesn't have anything to do murdering the weak
> anymore or less that dictorarships or other similiar
> forms of repressive, controlling governments.

Exactly. Which is why Islamist extremists killing innocents in terror
attacks isn't enough in itself to make them ideologically Fascistic.

> By your new definition any group that attacks another has strong
> Fascists tendencies such as the Shites and Sunni's killing each
> other in Iraq. Apparently we have Fascists fighting Fascists.

That's tribalism with AKs and IEDs. Fascism is a form of government,
Wooten. Very first requirement to be a Fascist is to have a state.
The Iraqi state's problem is not at all that it condones this
form of behavior, but rather that it's too weak to control it.

> I can see why you are soo pissed at GWB. What does
> he think he's doing stealing your line?

Ideologues of all stripes like to throw around Fascist and Nazi in
less than appropriate circumstances. Right-wing Jews are, though,
just as responsible for this as left-wing civil libertarians.

> I'm not so sure that's why Charles Krauthammer started using it

You're mot? It's fairly obvious, Wooten. It's a
propaganda term that puts a unitary, wholly demonized
face on our enemies. You explained precisely why
the Bush regime finds this term so useful yourself.

> but it's a good bet that's why he continues to use it.
> It generates even more discussion thus further elevating
> the grave danger in the minds of the American Public.

Except that it does precisely the opposite, Wooten. It *shuts down*
genuine discussion and diverts it into idiot pissing matches likee
the one we're currently having. "Know your enemy" is not appeasement.
It doesn't mean making nice with your enemy -- and it is *essential*
to any kind of victory in any kind of war. "Islamofascism" is
unhelpful mainly because it puts a unitary face on a diverse bunch
of global opponents. Hamas and Hezbollah do not share the same
goals as al Qaeda. Iran -- a country that has engaged in no Saddam-
like territorial revanchism -- is authoritarian. but not Fascist.

Red State Mike said that he'd definitely not call Saddam's regime
Islamofascist -- and here, surprisingly, I'd disagree with him.
While Saddam likened himself more to Stalin (the inspiration
for his moustache) -- and truthfully Stalinist and Hitlerian
totalitarianisms share many salient features, his regime was more
like Hitler's in that he was a hardcore pan-Arab racist. Right now
he's being tried for a bona-fide genocide against the Kurds for the
crime of being Kurds -- and using chemical weapons on them. If there
was ever a regime to which Islamofascism applied, it was Saddam's.
He used the Koran just as cynically and superficially as Hitler used
Bavarian Catholicism to wrap his rhetoric in the garb of Providence.

The Dominionists and Christian Reconstructionists in America are
likewise not Fascist -- although they are an American Taliban that
would like to impose a theocratic nanny state that very few people
would ever endure. But their motives are entirely religious and
only use politics as a means to the ends of this goal. They are
entirely analogous to Islamists who wish to impose Sharia law.

> Everyone equates Fascism with the evil of Hitler and he's accepted
> as the worst of the worst. We need to see Islamic Fundamentalists
> in the same way. They are the worst of the worst.

Exactly. That's the simpleminded and unhelpful propaganda aim.

Bob

Ideologically, you're more diverse than you credit yourself.

Not at all. Few are pure ideologically. We don't share brains. But I am absolutely conservative. The reality is that it's impossible to be ideologocally pure and politically effective at the same time. I am close to GWB on foreign policy but far away on domestic policy as far as the role of government, spending and tax policy. George deserves credit for the last series of supply-side tax cuts but GWB is not a hard-core, authentic supply-sider. He's been an ace on judges.

There might be more things I disagree with GWB on that I agree with him on but that's not the important political question. The question is, "Is GWB better than Kerry?"

Absolutely not. I've left several messages which describe the essential ingredients of Fascism.

And each one expanded the meaning toward absurdity. Fascism has zero to do with racism. Hitler and Mussoline were fascists and racists but fascism has nothing to do with racism. Your problem here is liberals have spent decades smearing Fascism and now thing they have reserved the word for themselves. It's too useful not to share.

"Islamofascism" is
unhelpful mainly because it puts a unitary face on a diverse bunch
of global opponents. Hamas and Hezbollah do not share the same
goals as al Qaeda. Iran -- a country that has engaged in no Saddam-
like territorial revanchism -- is authoritarian. but not Fascist.

Actually it does not put a unitary face on a diverse bunch. It's puts a uitary face on a common bunch. Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaedo may not share the same goals but they share the same means and thus are identical in terms of our goal in the GWOT.

You wish to reward terror. You can only guarrantee more of it. We wish to eliminate it be ensuring the practioners lose badly. There are all the same and they must be killed. The people carrying the bombs are cattle. We need to kill their managers.

Call Iran whatever you want and by all means have a great academic debate. My point remains as a political factor Islamic fascism is a great term. What matters is how effective is conjures the desired image to the greater public rather than how the eggheads feel about the correct terminology. Islamic-authoritarians just doesn't have that ring.

rdw:

>> Absolutely not. I've left several messages which
>> describe the essential ingredients of Fascism.

> And each one expanded the meaning toward absurdity.

Wrong. Every one who's read them, whether it's SecularAnimist or
Red State Mike, has agreed with them. I know my history, Wooten.

> Fascism has zero to do with racism. Hitler and Mussoline were
> fascists and racists but fascism has nothing to do with racism.

This is just blithering idiocy. Fascism is in all cases characterized
by hypernationalism, and hypernationalism leads inevitably to racism.

You said you didn't understand why Krauthammer uses the term.
One of the main reasons Islamofascism has common coin is because
Islamist extremists love to parrot off the Protocols of the Elders
of Zion and claim that Israeli Jews bake matzohs from the blood
of dead Palestinian babies. Seems that gutter anti-semitism is a
characteristic shared by Islamist extremists and German Nazis.

Fascism has everything to do with racialist conspiracy theories.
And if you don't believe me -- read some of what your boy Red State
Mike has posted on the characteristics of Fascist doctrine.

> Your problem here is liberals have spent decades smearing Fascism

*Smearing* Fascism? What, is there something about that ideology
worth *defending*? Heh, continue to carry on in this vein and
you'll start sounding like a Holocaust denier. You know, those
dirty Jews conspiring to wreck the reputation of Hitler's Germany.

> and now thing they have reserved the word
> for themselves. It's too useful not to share.

Tell it to the Likudinks who scream Hitlerian anti-semite at
critics of Israel. Tell it to the wingnuts who kept comparing
Saddam to Hitler. The left hardly had a monopoly on that term.

>> "Islamofascism" is unhelpful mainly because it puts a
>> unitary face on a diverse bunch of global opponents. Hamas
>> and Hezbollah do not share the same goals as al Qaeda. Iran
>> -- a country that has engaged in no Saddam-like territorial
>> revanchism -- is authoritarian. but not Fascist.

> Actually it does not put a unitary face on a diverse
> bunch. It's puts a uitary face on a common bunch.

Only to someone who values the effacacy of propaganda over
objective truth. You know, Wooten -- Totalitarian regimes Fascist,
Communist or otherwise thrive on propaganda. Democracies,
however, put a premium on having a discussion with facts.

Your love of propaganda is disturbing to a small-d democrat.

> Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaedo may not share the
> same goals but they share the same means and thus
> are identical in terms of our goal in the GWOT.

And that's blind strategic idiocy. Hezbollah has morphed for the
moment into a social service organization. It's also becoming a
genuine military force; notice there were no suicide attacks in the
entire war. Hamas is on the balls of its ass; suicide attacks are
one of the only weapons it has. Al Qaeda, conversely, uses suicide
terrorism as a strategy, not merely a tactic. Zarqawi -- to
the great consternation of Al Qaeda who want pan-Muslim unity
-- used beheadings and car bombings to kill Shia, whom Sunni
takfiri extremists consider more evil that Christians and Jews.

> You wish to reward terror.

Which part of "know your enemy" don't you understand?

> You can only guarrantee more of it.

It is Bush's "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists"
is what has, in fact, guaranteed more. It backs Muslims against a
wall and some consider it a choice between their religion and the
values of an alien culture. Instead, the West should be saying that
your religion is no threat to our values, nor should our values be
a threat to your religion. A moderate, middle way which in fact kept
the incidents of Islamist terrorism quite low prior to the post-9/11
period. Today, Islamism is exploding across the Islamic world.

9/11 was a lucky hit by a bunch of crazed thugs who used boxcutters,
brutality and expensive flying lessons. Not nearly as sophisticated
as it is hyped. All it really took was funding and dedication.

> We wish to eliminate it be ensuring the practioners lose badly.
> There are all the same and they must be killed. The people
> carrying the bombs are cattle. We need to kill their managers.

And this is the crux of why Fascism is such a poor analogy for this
movement. Hitler was bent on world conquest. Conquer the conquerer
and you show his people their folly. Islamist extremism is bent on
martyrdom to a higher cause. Kill the Islamist extremists in the
most precise and genocidal way you can, and you merely validate their
ideology of martyrdom. Short of exterminating Muslims as a class,
there's no way to separate a pious conservative Muslim from someone
who would condone a jihad against the West. Killing their leaders
will only argue to them that it's time to get off the sidelines.

Here's the thing, Wooten. In order for Muslims to value their lives
over jihadi martyrdom, they have to have already been assimilated
into an alternate value system. Muslim-Americans have -- which is
why they find suicide terrorism revolting. But without that process
of assimilation, death threats for supporting terrorism have the
precise opposite effect. Their answer is bring on my martyrdom.

You simply cannot use the threat of death to coerce these people.

> Call Iran whatever you want and by all means have a great
> academic debate. My point remains as a political factor
> Islamic fascism is a great term. What matters is how effective
> is conjures the desired image to the greater public rather
> than how the eggheads feel about the correct terminology.
> Islamic-authoritarians just doesn't have that ring.

Ask Red State Mike -- the correct term is Islamist extremism.

That has the signal advantage of not alienating not merely already
moderate Muslims, but Muslims on the edge between two cultures and
need to avoid any more reasons to join the Dark Side against us.

Bob

*Smearing* Fascism? What, is there something about that ideology
worth *defending*? Heh, continue to carry on in this vein and
you'll start sounding like a Holocaust denier. You know, those
dirty Jews conspiring to wreck the reputation of Hitler's Germany.

Nice twist. There was no attempt to defend fascism. The value of the term 'Fascism', which by the way 49 of 50 people would not be able to accurately define, is that it has been smeared for so long and so deligently by liberals. I have no problem with that nor did I suggest so. Quite the contrary. I think the term is extremely useful. In the US it has come to mean Nazi. Ergo the term Islamo-Fascist is an excellent description of terrorist and those who support them directly or indirectly.

As far as Hitlers Germany you are going to have to get over it. One of the next big shocks for the liberals will be the re-emergence of Germany as a military power. While a large block of West Germans still remain guilt-ridden over the Nazi past that's largely a generational, and a geographical issue. Younger Germans understand they are not responsible for their fathers sins any more than your are.

Liberals have yet to think through the implications of GWB removing the entire US defense umbrella from Europe. Germans are well aware 200,000 heavily armed US troops have left and only Germans are available to defend Germany. It was interesting Gunter Grass was exposed recently as a fraud. The credibility of those urging Germany remain weak is limited. Gunter earned his guilt. Younger Germans have none. It's not hard to forecast how they'll react as their world becomes more dangerous. History suggest appeasement is not in their nature.

And that's blind strategic idiocy. Hezbollah has morphed for the
moment into a social service organization. It's also becoming a
genuine military force; notice there were no suicide attacks in the
entire war.

Hezbollah is purely a terrorist organization which exist for the sole purpose of killing the jews. Iran, which cannot lift it's own masses out of poverty, would not fund it otherwise. Hezbollah also fought as a terrorist organization. They do not use uniforms and they hide among civilians using their homes as storage depots and sniper positions.

Of all of your arguments regarding Middle East terrorism the description of Hezbollah as a social organization is the dumbest and the most useful to the GOP. You will never hear a politicain pick up your theme. The moment some twit describes them as a social organization someone will ask about the 200 Marines killed in 1983. Somehow americans with a brain don't see it your way.

This is why liberals are so quickly identified as weak on terror. Those Marines mean nothing to you. If they did you would not insult them so.

It is Bush's "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists"
is what has, in fact, guaranteed more.

No it hasn't. The attacks are happening in Europe where they are finally learning how desperate their situation is. Even Tony Blair, who has been abysmally PC domestically, is starting to get a clue.

We have been safe. Every regime in the middle east has been cracking down big time on terrorist making damn sure no one hatches a plot to attack the USA from their territory. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, etc., shoot Al Qaeda suspects on sight or they commit suicide before they can they caught knowing what they're in for. Iran has been certain to keep Hezbollah and Hamas on a short leash.

The terrorist do not attack the USA for the same reason they stopped attacking Russia. Putin cam and has killed 20,000+ in retaliation for attacks on Russia.

GWB has done a fabulous job getting people to focus on aggressive self-defense. South Korea, Japan, Germany and Canada are just 4 major economies focusing more closely on aggressive defense showing substantive shifts in public support for higher defense spending. Equally impressive has been his dramatic overture toward India.

Just think about the geo-politics here. The worlds mature democracies and economic powers shifting to aggressive self-defense. Japan, Germany and India, along with the USA are 4 of the worlds 5 largest economies. Japan as we know has every intention of returning as a great military power. Germany is next.

The 'with us' crowd holds all of the aces. The other interesting thing here is that despite the forced changes after WWII neither the Japanese nor the Germans are known to be especially politically correct. 2006 is now the opposite of 1966 for them. New generations are in power and they have moved past guilt. They are now responsible for their own defenses. My guess is they'll embrace that responsibility.

We are safe and the world is being made safer. The Middle East will control their terrorist or thery will be eliminated.

Here's the thing, Wooten. In order for Muslims to value their lives
over jihadi martyrdom, they have to have already been assimilated
into an alternate value system. Muslim-Americans have -- which is
why they find suicide terrorism revolting. But without that process
of assimilation, death threats for supporting terrorism have the
precise opposite effect. Their answer is bring on my martyrdom.

You simply cannot use the threat of death to coerce these people

You are an absolute and total fraud. A great many Muslim-Americans cheered the destruction of the towers and we know this because we saw the tapes. ABC didn't play them because we might get the wrong idea but Fox did. "Assimilated" muslims all over the world cheered. There's no amount of assmilation in the world that can overcome religious fanaticism. Virtually all of the bombers were well-educated, middle-class muslims who traveled the world comfortably for a decade.

These people are donkeys. They are not the core problem. Islam will never have a shortage of donkeys. Sharon found the solution. You don't go after the donkeys. You go after the stable owner. Hamas decided the infatada wasn't such a good idea after all when their leaders kept on dying. Funny how those at the top are somewhat less enthusiastic about martyrdom isn't it?

Kinda funny how Osama and Mullah Omar have accepted living in caves in western Pakistan using pony express rather than risking getting found. They don't seem to be into that whole martyrdom thing either.

There is no point to terrorism other than to get appeasement. It's blackmail pure and simple. Make it work for them and they'll keep on using it. Kill them and they won't try it again.

Killing their leaders
will only argue to them that it's time to get off the sidelines.

Killing their leaders will convince them their leaders made some bad life choices and it probably isn't a very good idea to make the same life choices. Admittedly it doesn't always work immediately. If I remember correctly it wasn't until after Sharon killed the 3rd leader of Hamas that they ran into a strange recruitment problem. No one wanted to be the boss. Go figure! Then they decided the new leader would remain a secret.

Funny how that works isn't it? Being a suicide bomber requires a certain level of stupid. Obviously these are not the types who get positioned for promotion. They are cannon fodder. One cannot make leadership wanting to die. It's quite the opposite. Thus once their asses are in the cross-eyes martydom looks far less attractive. They re-evaluate to move away from the cross-hairs.

The Sauds didn't crack down on terrorism because they were upset about 9/11. They cracked down because they want to live.

Bob,

From NRO,

A Woman With Her Doubts [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

e-mails:

I don't think you'll be able to engage NOW in the war against Islamofacism unless you point out that the establishment of the global caliphate will impede their ability to kill their their own children until AFTER the children are born. Even then, I don't think you can convince them that mullahs and imams are worse than W.

Posted at 12:45 PM

I thought you'd like the sample of conservative humor and would pick up on our new favorite buzzword. I think it's a keeper.

The Dominionists and Christian Reconstructionists in America are
likewise not Fascist -- although they are an American Taliban that
would like to impose a theocratic nanny state that very few people
would ever endure. But their motives are entirely religious and
only use politics as a means to the ends of this goal. They are
entirely analogous to Islamists who wish to impose Sharia law.

Didn't really pickup on this repulsive bit of logic at 1st. This is exactly why the left is killing the Democratic party. I love it when liberals compare religions practiced in America to the Taliban. It's perfect. Seriously. You have your head stuck so far up your ass it is amazing. The Taliban is famous for turning their soccer stadium into a killing field for mass executions and beatings. That's hardly the only butchery.

I'll have to be honest. I read a few papers, watch the news, check the blogs and I'll be damned if I can remember a single execution by the Dominionists or Christian Reconstructionists. No a one. Actually, I don't recall reading they've ever smacked anyone.

Hmmmmmm! And you think they're just like the Taliban? Of course you do! You wouldn't be a liberla if you didn't. And don't think for a second they don't know it. Even if they didn't hear you the 1st time Karl Rove has dedicated his life to making sure they understand what liberals think of them. They get it repeated to them again and again.

It is rather funny how people react to being called racists or rubes or when they're considered no better than mass murderers. They don't like it. Go figure!

Just for the record what do you think they think about you?

I have a name for these people and it's not religious bigots or anything like that. I call them consistent, single-level GOP voters. They not only vote in every election they vote straight GOP every time. They have some other bad qualities. They procreate.

George Clooney wants the change the sense people have of liberals. The term has become almost an epitath. As long as your kind is around George is pissing in the wind. Keep up the good work you sanctimonious ass.

Here you go Bob,

Listen to me and learn. Germany gets it. They get it loud and clear. Give them 10 years. By then the top military powers will be in order the USA, Japan, Germany.

Das Boot der Juden

"Israel signed a contract with Germany last month to buy two Dolphin-class submarines that will, according to foreign reports, provide superior second-strike nuclear capabilities," the Jerusalem Post reported yesterday. Blogger TigerHawk observes:

I, for one, find it fascinating that this deal was announced the day after Iran rejected the West's demand that it stop enriching uranium. This deal had obviously been under discussion for some time, but the timing of its announcement is hard to put down to bureaucratic chance. Germany is sending a signal.

My use of the term "Islamofascism" did not originate or flourish in the blogoswamp. It was developed in articles in respectable journals like the London SPECTATOR and in my book THE TWO FACES OF ISLAM. It is not a slogan. It is a serious theory of sociopolitical analysis.

Stephen,

I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Krauthammer and the others would not use the term of it was not serious and applicable analysis. In this swamp that's rarely the point and it certainly wasn't with Bob and the rest. They use the term solely to conjure images of Hitler and like to think they have exclusive rights.

Their problem isn't with the proper use of terminology but the term will prove effective politically.