Is Islamofascism a correct term to use describing terrorists?

Originally posted by Kacen
Al Qaeda

Another creation of Militarywood Productions.

I can almost hear GB shouting the name out from the directors chair:

Al Qaeda...lights...camera...action...

The rest, as they say, is history


edit: can't quote - shoot me pls

[edit on 15/12/2007 by skibtz]

Originally posted by CPYKOmega
For this term to work you would have to change it around so it would define every kind of terrorism. This term is nothing but stereotyping propaganda.

Example:

Islamofascist, Christianofascist, Buddisofascist, Hinduofascist, Taofascist, Satanistofascist.

Anyone else see the complete idiocy of the term Islamofascist now?



Edit to add:

Anyone interested in what's going on with the world today please research The Knights Templar. Basically what happened back in the 1200-1400's is happening today. With one exception, technology.


[edit on 12-15-2007 by CPYKOmega]

No, because none of those religions currently has "some" people engaged in fascist-like terroristic actions.

Your post is just a derivative of the tired, old deflection that attempts to excuse today's muslim extremism with the actions taken by people of other religions sometimes centuries ago ("some" muslims were being terrorists then, too).

Originally posted by CPYKOmega
You are missing the point I am trying to point out that this term is directed only at Muslims. And for it to fit the description that the op is trying to set out the terms I used would have to be in the dictionary as well.

Are you telling me that only the people of Islam are terrorists? Get real buddy.

No, you get real - "buddy".

You are again attempting to say that the OP is painting "all" muslims with this label.

Clearly (to most) that was not their intention. But the attempts at deflection clearly were your intention.

Originally posted by skibtz

Originally posted by Kacen
Al Qaeda

Another creation of Militarywood Productions.

I can almost hear GB shouting the name out from the directors chair:

Al Qaeda...lights...camera...action...

The rest, as they say, is history

Umm. Even the Islamic world acknowledges theres an Al Qaeda. They've existed before 9/11, it's documented.

I have a friend on MSN from Tikrit, Iraq, I met him on a gaming forum (that is now defunct), he is a Muslim, and he says basically the fighters in Iraq are composed of generic insurgents who fight the Coalition troops and the new Iraqi government, Sunni insurgents and Shiite insurgents who fight the Coalition/Iraqi government and each other, and Al Qaeda, who is not afraid to kill -anyone- who gets in their way, whether Muslim or not, Sunni or Shiite, they'll kill -anyone.

edit: can't quote - shoot me pls

So many jokes I could make but I will refrain. ;3

Islamofascism does not exist. Search for "fascism" in the dictionary. It's about the state and the corporations working together

What exists it could be called Islamic Inquisition - those islamic people that would like everyone obey their rules like : wear a scarf or be killed. It resembles the middle ages , has nothing to do with fascism

[edit on 15-12-2007 by pai mei]

Al Qaeda

Wow you hit the nail on the head on that one but what about the terrorist who aren't in that particular organization like you said it is very specific considering the number of terrorist organization in the world besides Al Qaeda

[edit on 15-12-2007 by The_Eye]

Originally posted by The_Eye

Al Qaeda

Wow you hit the nail on the head on that one but what about the terrorist who aren't in that particular organization like you said it is very specific considering the number of terrorist organization in the world besides Al Qaeda

Well that was the most obvious and well known one with global goals.

I can think of the Taliban in addition but nothing else.

Yes those are 2 of the larger ones and the ones the US is most concerned with but look at the Armed Islamic Group in Algeria whiping out entire villages in there home country and have killed a more than a 100 foreigners since 1993 and the al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya in Egypt who have also killed hundreds of people there are many others but many are just to small and unorganized to hurt us it just a few who are a threat to the US

Ladies and Gentleman, I thank you for participating in this thread.

I raise the question because my brother, a devout religious neo-conservative while enjoying thanksgiving dinner, started to discuss Ron Paul, and his only concern about this presidential candidate was he wasn't sure if Ron understands the "threat" posed by Islamofacists, he is a huge fan of Michael Savage. and is easily influenced by propaganda.

So now that the stew is simmering well, lets stir the pot.

What term is more true?

Islamofacism?

Or The Fascist States of America?

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and social interests subordinate to the interests of the state. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism
Fascism

It takes one to know one:

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” Benito Mussolini
Benito Mussolini

I will restate the question:

What term is more true?

Islamofacism?

Or The Fascist States of America?

But I will add, or are both equally Fascist?

Neither the Islamic extremists or the United States is Fascist.

Fascism is nationalistic, the Islamic extremists put religion before nations.

Fascism is a dictatorship not democracy; we're a democracy now, and in addition, to reiterate, a dictatorship is not the one thing needed for Fascism.

Fascism is anti-communist and anti-anarchist, as a rule, to the murderous extent; we have freedom of speech here, you can be a communist or anarchist in the US and not be hunted down and killed (much to my anger e_e).

And, to go deeper into it, and most importantly of all, Fascism pretty much sprang up due to fear of communism; the entire Fascist system is a perfect system to keep communism from taking over a country, it's built to keep the state as stable as possible from collapse, and the economic system is a communist's worst nightmare, even worse than capitalism to them.

There isn't a communist influence on the Muslims now, they're not fighting a war against communism specifically, so to call them Fascists is utterly absurd.

Our primary enemy now is not communist, we know this.

Need I say any more?

[edit on 12/15/2007 by Kacen]

Originally posted by CPYKOmega
You are missing the point I am trying to point out that this term is directed only at Muslims. And for it to fit the description that the op is trying to set out the terms I used would have to be in the dictionary as well.

Are you telling me that only the people of Islam are terrorists? Get real buddy.

I think it is you who are missing the point. The term refers to only those in Islam supporting Radical, totalitarian, non Democratic and lack of tolerance for other religions as well as supporting using terror against innocents as a way to advance their cause. You are the one making the connection to all of Islam, which it really doesn't refer to. Sure it's a slogan, but it depicts only a portion of Islam.

Sure this is wiki but the definition will do:

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and social interests subordinate to the interests of the state. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism

Is not A.Q. brand of Islam combining Politics and Religion? To use it as a reference to Fascism in Italy during WWII would be wrong, as Mussolini wanted nothing to do with religion.

reply to post by LDragonFire


All muslims are Islamofascists. Some just dont show it.

The words are there in the qoran, plain as day "kill all who refuse Islam".

They all read & follow this book & thus they all must believe what the book says, reguardless weather they admit it or not.

I'm not saying there aren't any Good Muslims out there, but what I am saying is, that when the time comes, they will all obey the words of their book and take to their fellow humans with Knives & swords & slaughter all those whom refuse the words of Mohammed.

Hell it's what their book says.. word for word & it cannot be mistaken or missinterpreted. "those who refuse islam must be slaughtered".

YOu can't tell me tha every muslim who believes his/her qoran, dosent believe all the words within it.

First off there was such thing as "Christian-fascism." Look no further than the Romanian Legion of the Archangel Michael.

But that is beside the point the fact is that tis a bit dicey to speak of fascism as a definate ideology. Indeed Schoenbaum seemed to argue that fascism in Germany was just a blanket of Hitler's charisma covering various parts within the government from fighting one another. The SS, the SA, and KdF had very different understandings of what fascism meant. Just as (for example) the Italians, Germans, and Spaniards did. So it is very simplistic to say that fascism is just corporatism. If that were the definition, then -- as a previous poster said -- the US would be fascist, as would most every other modern economy.

To try to define fascism I'd use Nolte's definition. One of the most prolific post-war historian on the subject (though I have to mention Paxton, Payne, Mosse, and Peukert). He ended up flipping out (catastrophically so!!!), but before he gave one of hte most commonly utilized definitions, though one in which he said varied from specific case to specific case. He said the elements were:

Anti-Communism
Anti-Liberalism
Anti-Conservatism
Leadership Principle
Party-Army
Aim of Totalitarianism

OK, now lets take the Taliban. Obviously anti-communist, obviously anti-liberal, obviously anti-conservative (defined as overthrowing traditional nobility and implementing the strictest form of Sharia law ever seen in the Islamic world, though [as Linz notes] there was clearly a fascist willingness to work with conservative forces for short term goals), clearly adhered to the leadership principle (headed by dictator Mullah Mohommed Omar), obviously had the party army, and yes obviously tried to impose a totalitarian government.

Lets take Paxton's definition that "Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood 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"

I'm not sure how the Taliban could be defined as anything other than a "fascist" ideology. If you are saying its not, then what definition of Fascism are you using?



[edit on 15-12-2007 by XBadger]

[edit on 15-12-2007 by XBadger]

reply to post by Kacen


Nah, I don't think it should be al-qaeda/al-qaida, from what I have heard that's supposed be translated to the English phrase "The Base" or something to that term. CIA was supposed to have given them that name during the Soviet invasion and attempted occupation of Afghanistan.
I would prefer just calling them something like Violent Islamic Radicalists, sums them up I think. Call them VIR for short.
I dunno, just my thought on it.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Well, it has been proven that there is a link between Islamic "fanaticism" and the Nazis; the Nazis even supported them during WW2...

It's also been proven that the United States has done the same much more recently.

Originally posted by Ironclad

All muslims are Islamofascists. Some just dont show it.

The words are there in the qoran, plain as day "kill all who refuse Islam".

That's probably one of the most absurd statements I've read on this board.

Please reference where in the Quran it says that.

I think we are splitting hairs here. IslamoFacism is a term that started by people considered to be subject matter experts in Middle Eastern Events and is not a term to genralize fundamentalism or Extremism; It is a term that encompasses those, especially Al Qaida which seek to establish a Muslim Government that is unified under a single Caliphate and would like to use any means including circumventing the in place laws of the Sharia to get it. This is being done by the same way that Hitler spoke of the "Fatherland" (this is where the facism part came in)

There is nothing wrong with the unification of Islam under a Caliphate I am not, I repeat not saying that. What I am saying is that Usama would like it to be him and is using methods that are outside of his theology (IMO) in order to establish it.

Usama also blames the US for the fall of the Caliphate which makes no sense at all. France, England and Russia are the one who divided up the Ottoman Empire in 1916 after the First World War. (Sykes-Picot Agreement)

This is really not even the formers mentioned Countries faults, as the Turks liberated their homeland (Anatolia) through a General named Mustafa Kemal. Kemals first act in 1922 was to abolish the Caliphate position which was held by the Turkish Sultinate and was considered to be the head of all Sunni Islam of which had dated back to Muhammads death

reply to post by CPYKOmega


Incorrect assumption see my POST Above, also your 1200-1400 dates are also inconsistent

Try 1095 AD when Pope Urban the Second used the request of Byzantium (Byzantine Empire, the vestiges of the Eastern Roman Empire) (Also Constatinople and now Istanbul) as a way to enter war. Back then they were considered the infidels.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Well, it has been proven that there is a link between Islamic "fanaticism" and the Nazis; the Nazis even supported them during WW2...

The Nazis did not support Islamic 'fanatics' and I would be interested in hearing what contitutes proof to your mind. Germany was allied to the Ottoman Turks in WW1 and the Pasha of Palestine took refuge in Germany in WW2 - but this has nothing to do with Islam or fanaticism, simply common goals and enemies.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
The Knights Templar were scapegoats of the Church... They didn't go around pillaging and raping... That was just a lie used by the church to demonize a group of people the church disagreed with.

Yes they did go around raping, pillaging, murdering women and children - the whole shebang. The lies that the Church generated were that they worshipped Satan and engaged in homosexual practices. The raping and pillaging was done in the name of the Church and hence they were never charged with such crimes. The only reason that Pope Clement outlawed them was because a) they had grown too powerful and represented a threat b) Clement was more fearful of Philip of France than he was of the Templars.




[edit on 15-12-2007 by KilgoreTrout]

Originally posted by Ironclad
All muslims are Islamofascists. Some just dont show it.

The words are there in the qoran, plain as day "kill all who refuse Islam".

Then show us where it says this and what it says before and after the so called verse.

Since you put it in quotes ("kill all who refuse Islam."), I'd like you to post this direct surrah.

Originally posted by birchtree
Incorrect assumption see my POST Above, also your 1200-1400 dates are also inconsistent

Try 1095 AD when Pope Urban the Second used the request of Byzantium (Byzantine Empire, the vestiges of the Eastern Roman Empire) (Also Constatinople and now Istanbul) as a way to enter war. Back then they were considered the infidels.

Actually I was referring to the documentary not the entire reign of the Knights of Christ. I am talking about the time when they TURNED from their ways of protecting the church to attack the Muslims. If you would watch the documentary I provided you would see that.