The Big Lie About 'Islamic Fascism'

OutOfBreath

acutejam wrote:

I'll agree the Islamic Extremists aren't "nationalistic" from our point of view.

They would be the "world-domination" type of nation, uber-worldwide kinda nation -- the Caliphate I believe? They're looking at a "nation" that doesn't quite exist right now....

Fascism = rigid one-party control = check

Ehm no. Islamic terrorist groups are loosely connected (and not even all are) without a defined centre, only ideological figureheads. The groups are autonomous and with little contact with eachother.

Fascism = forcible suppression of opposition = check

ok, that would be authoritarianism.

Fascism = private enterprise under centralized govt control = check

Que? They aren't communists, they are traditionalists. Maybe not overly capitalism cheerleaders, but not exactly accurate description either. They are no party and have no program as such. They only unite in their means and vague visionary goal. Little else.

Fascism = beligerent nationalsim = again, looking past "nation", check, they're mighty beligerent

Then any transcending ideology is fascism, if you can substitute nationalism for "world domination" or changing the world somewhat. The heart of fascism IS nationalism, and a fevered version at that.

Fascism = racism = check

But all racists are not fascists

Fascism = militarism = check

But all militants are not fascist.

a political party based on all the above = check

They are not a political party. A movement, tendency perhaps, but no party.

And then, I liked this one:
Hezbullah and Hamas – both, by the way, democratically elected parties

More accureate to say members of these parties have been democratically elected to a national government -- but to call Hezbollah/Nasarralah democratically elected, nope. The leadership of Hamas and Hez couldn't be further from democracy. The makeup of these two groups are diametrically oppossed to democracy, but fun to see them come out and play with their homies!

Ehm, they are democratically elected by any definition. You can't take that away from them. Participation in relatively clean elections winning seats. That they may not be dedicated democratic at heart is one thing, but they are democratically elected. Like it or not.

I'm not defending these wackos, just pointing out that fascist is a wrong description, and one used to score some easy points on our negative associations with fascism in the west. They are authoritarian, fanatic and traditionalist and with a healthy does of xenophobia. But fascist is a wrong adjective.

Peace
Dan

dg1979us

RainDog wrote:

We could be getting into a chicken or egg thing here. The 'brainwashing' works because of already strongly held beliefs, being manipulated by authoritarian regimes ruling over underprivileged populations, that then take their frustrations out on what they see to be foreign oppressors - oppressors who then go and fulfill the expectations of these populations by propping up authoritarian regimes, only to take them down later after they no longer have any purpose. All this to the tune of thousands and thousands of civilian deaths. And, as most religious people will tell you, when the world has got you down, you can take comfort, solace, and direction from religion - direction which is usually provided by someone else. And it's usually someone who preaches the hard line (no one gets followers by being soft) - and these people have nothing to lose anyway, so ....... Jihad!

Now, where was I? Oh, yeah. There is a movement in this country, one that's strong enough to get the ear of the president (and some say won him the office) that want nothing more than to make it harder and harder to be independent of their view of Christianity. It's not too hard for me to imagine, through either an economic collapse or perhaps the last death knell of democracy, that these people could take a much stronger position over larger populations. However, hope - and a general lack of bombs going off everywhere - keeps most people from turning to religion in that way.

One only needs to look at what George H. W. Bush once said in an interview to see that the differences in fundamentalist belief are not really all that different:

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." - George H. W. Bush in a 1987 interview.

\


Let me first address the issue of Christianity in America. I agree Bush pandered to voters by using religion, but he used things like gay marriage, which I am certainly not against gay marriage, but being against gay marriage isnt on the same level as Saudi Arabia's Wahabi schools, for example.

Our religious extremists, picked out the gay teletubby. The reaction by our citizens was that Falwell (or whoever it was) was a lunatic. There clerics made a fuss over cartoons to the point of encouraging rioting, in which a few people were killed and many hurt. As goofy as the teletubby thing is, its not on par with rioting over a cartoon.

This country once had strongly held beliefs as well. But we are a much more open society, which like I said earlier, allows for a lot more independence with regards to your religious beliefs. In other words, there is a religious aspect to our society, but it isnt forced on us, and it is no where near as prevelent as in most ME countries. We dont have anywhere near the same level of brainwashing as most ME countries do, and yes, when a country wraps a religion into almost every aspect of society, then I consider it brainwashing.

NCfan

RainDog wrote:

We could be getting into a chicken or egg thing here. The 'brainwashing' works because of already strongly held beliefs, being manipulated by authoritarian regimes ruling over underprivileged populations, that then take their frustrations out on what they see to be foreign oppressors - oppressors who then go and fulfill the expectations of these populations by propping up authoritarian regimes, only to take them down later after they no longer have any purpose. All this to the tune of thousands and thousands of civilian deaths. And, as most religious people will tell you, when the world has got you down, you can take comfort, solace, and direction from religion - direction which is usually provided by someone else. And it's usually someone who preaches the hard line (no one gets followers by being soft) - and these people have nothing to lose anyway, so ....... Jihad!

Now, where was I? Oh, yeah. There is a movement in this country, one that's strong enough to get the ear of the president (and some say won him the office) that want nothing more than to make it harder and harder to be independent of their view of Christianity. It's not too hard for me to imagine, through either an economic collapse or perhaps the last death knell of democracy, that these people could take a much stronger position over larger populations. However, hope - and a general lack of bombs going off everywhere - keeps most people from turning to religion in that way.

One only needs to look at what George H. W. Bush once said in an interview to see that the differences in fundamentalist belief are not really all that different:

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." - George H. W. Bush in a 1987 interview.

I see where you are coming from, but just becuase we have a bad administration does not change the fundamental nature of our country. We were founded upon the ideals of freedom and liberty, regardless of whose in the White House. Our congress voted for the war, so you can't blame that on Bush and claim that God is what our country is fighting for now.

It's one thing to have a government that puts "In god we trust" on the money or in the pledge of alleigance, or makes you swear to God in a court, doesn't appropriate money for stem cell research, outlaws sodomy and won't let homosexuals get married....

But it something ENTIRELY different to have a government hang homosexuals and adulters, whip and beat women who don't cover their bodies or show too much skin, outlaw all reglieons besides Islam, behead "infidels", sanction female genital mutilation, ban certain music/words.....

In fact, it's just insane that people talk about Bush being the "Hitler" and the worlds most dangerous man - when he opposes regimes that govern in the above-mentioned way.

Some people would have you think we're trying to nuke Switzerland or something... but he is just trying to check the influence of regimes like Iran and Syria.

Is he going about it the right way? Mostly no. Is he a jack-ass? Mostly yes...

But to promote such views that WE are the fascist and Bush is Hitler is just reprehensible....

rebornFixer

OutOfBreath wrote:

Ehm, they are democratically elected by any definition. You can't take that away from them. Participation in relatively clean elections winning seats.

Dan

Um, I think the "clean" elections thing is open to debate. Anyhow, other than that, you're right. You're right, but I'd add that while we cannot argue that they did not use democratic processes, these people should not be permitted to hide behind this as some sort of excuse for their toxic ideology. I mean, the Nazis in the 1930s used a semblence of a democratic process to obtain power initially. Pointing out that these people were democratically elected doesn't really ... I don't know ... Help solve the problem, if that makes sense?

thankyougrandma

reborncareerist wrote:

Um, I think the "clean" elections thing is open to debate. Anyhow, other than that, you're right. You're right, but I'd add that while we cannot argue that they did not use democratic processes, these people should not be permitted to hide behind this as some sort of excuse for their toxic ideology. I mean, the Nazis in the 1930s used a semblence of a democratic process to obtain power initially. Pointing out that these people were democratically elected doesn't really ... I don't know ... Help solve the problem, if that makes sense?

that's why spreading democracy is not a solution... in my opinion it's a mistake. Democracy must be taken, not given. Iran is a democracy that violates Human rights, human rights respect should be what we try to spread.

rebornFixer

thankyougrandma wrote:

that's why spreading democracy is not a solution... in my opinion it's a mistake. Democracy must be taken, not given. Iran is a democracy that violates Human rights, human rights respect should be what we try to spread.

Indeed. It backfires.

dg1979us

OutOfBreath wrote:

Ehm, they are democratically elected by any definition. You can't take that away from them. Participation in relatively clean elections winning seats. That they may not be dedicated democratic at heart is one thing, but they are democratically elected. Like it or not.

I'm not defending these wackos, just pointing out that fascist is a wrong description, and one used to score some easy points on our negative associations with fascism in the west. They are authoritarian, fanatic and traditionalist and with a healthy does of xenophobia. But fascist is a wrong adjective.

Peace
Dan

They have a few members democratically elected to the Lebanese government, but, Hezbollah is really more of a state within a state. The Hizbollah army, or milita, or whatever you want to call it, does not act within the boundaries of the Lebanese governemnt, they act on their own accord more or less, through power supplied to them through Syria and Iran, not Lebanon.

OutOfBreath

reborncareerist wrote:

Um, I think the "clean" elections thing is open to debate. Anyhow, other than that, you're right. You're right, but I'd add that while we cannot argue that they did not use democratic processes, these people should not be permitted to hide behind this as some sort of excuse for their toxic ideology. I mean, the Nazis in the 1930s used a semblence of a democratic process to obtain power initially. Pointing out that these people were democratically elected doesn't really ... I don't know ... Help solve the problem, if that makes sense?

True. But from the reports I've heard about elections in both the occupied territories and Lebanon were fairly clean. And of course democratically elected does not mean democratic of spirit of course. Still I'd rather have them bickering in parliament than the alternative.

dg1979us wrote:

They have a few members democratically elected to the Lebanese government, but, Hezbollah is really more of a state within a state. The Hizbollah army, or milita, or whatever you want to call it, does not act within the boundaries of the Lebanese governemnt, they act on their own accord more or less, through power supplied to them through Syria and Iran, not Lebanon.

That's Hizbollah, yes. And there are problems having them brought under lebanese control, obviously. But the events that occurred did little to harm them and more to gain for them.

In any case, Hizbollah has little to do with "global terrorism" in any way, as they are sticking to the one (arguably legitimate) conflict with Israel over disputed lands. They may be stalling and prolonging conflict to their own needs of course, but is in no way anything like Al Quaeda and it's ilk. Same for Hamas, which is exclusively about fighting Israel. Those are guerillas and political parties, sure, engaged in a defined conflict in a specific area. And has little in common with the global terrorists.

I dont like them, but they are not fascists.

Peace
Dan

RainDog

dg1979us wrote:

\


Let me first address the issue of Christianity in America. I agree Bush pandered to voters by using religion, but he used things like gay marriage, which I am certainly not against gay marriage, but being against gay marriage isnt on the same level as Saudi Arabia's Wahabi schools, for example.

Our religious extremists, picked out the gay teletubby. The reaction by our citizens was that Falwell (or whoever it was) was a lunatic. There clerics made a fuss over cartoons to the point of encouraging rioting, in which a few people were killed and many hurt. As goofy as the teletubby thing is, its not on par with rioting over a cartoon.

This country once had strongly held beliefs as well. But we are a much more open society, which like I said earlier, allows for a lot more independence with regards to your religious beliefs. In other words, there is a religious aspect to our society, but it isnt forced on us, and it is no where near as prevelent as in most ME countries. We dont have anywhere near the same level of brainwashing as most ME countries do, and yes, when a country wraps a religion into almost every aspect of society, then I consider it brainwashing.

I'm not disagreeing with you that, yes, we are not currently anywhere near what these Middle East countries practice. And I agree that it is because we are a more open society. What I'm saying is, we can "afford" to be more open. We have more options so therefore we don't produce as many nuts - In fact, I think we agree more than we're letting on.

It's our society that keeps the religious fundamentalists down - and when politicians take up the torch for these fundamentalists, it bothers me. Because, as I see it, there is no inherent superiority to be found in Christianity over Islam. Given the right circumstances, it can be just as nasty. And there are many people living in this country that want it to be.

acutejam

OutOfBreath wrote:

Ehm no. Islamic terrorist groups are loosely connected (and not even all are) without a defined centre, only ideological figureheads. The groups are autonomous and with little contact with eachother.

But each seeks a rigid one-party system, no?

OutOfBreath wrote:

ok, that would be authoritarianism.

Webster's New World, Collegiate 4th -- forcible suppression is a part of facism.

OutOfBreath wrote:

Que? They aren't communists, they are traditionalists. Maybe not overly capitalism cheerleaders, but not exactly accurate description either. They are no party and have no program as such. They only unite in their means and vague visionary goal. Little else.

I can only point to Islamic countries (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran) and what the Taliban sought to demonstrate that their major industries were/are indeed nationalized, part of the govt. Were Hamas or Hez to run a country, I think they would "run" most of the major industries, ie nationalize them.

OutOfBreath wrote:

Then any transcending ideology is fascism, if you can substitute nationalism for "world domination" or changing the world somewhat. The heart of fascism IS nationalism, and a fevered version at that.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that each of these was the end all -- each of these are components of facism, and yep, of other systems too. Was just easier to check each off by breaking them out of the total definition, look at each component seperately.

dg1979us

RainDog wrote:

I'm not disagreeing with you that, yes, we are not currently anywhere near what these Middle East countries practice. And I agree that it is because we are a more open society. What I'm saying is, we can "afford" to be more open. We have more options so therefore we don't produce as many nuts - In fact, I think we agree more than we're letting on.

It's our society that keeps the religious fundamentalists down - and when politicians take up the torch for these fundamentalists, it bothers me. Because, as I see it, there is no inherent superiority to be found in Christianity over Islam. Given the right circumstances, it can be just as nasty. And there are many people living in this country that want it to be.

We probably were agreeing more than we thought, because I agree with pretty much your entire post.

dg1979us

OutOfBreath wrote:

That's Hizbollah, yes. And there are problems having them brought under lebanese control, obviously. But the events that occurred did little to harm them and more to gain for them.

In any case, Hizbollah has little to do with "global terrorism" in any way, as they are sticking to the one (arguably legitimate) conflict with Israel over disputed lands. They may be stalling and prolonging conflict to their own needs of course, but is in no way anything like Al Quaeda and it's ilk. Same for Hamas, which is exclusively about fighting Israel. Those are guerillas and political parties, sure, engaged in a defined conflict in a specific area. And has little in common with the global terrorists.

I dont like them, but they are not fascists.

Peace
Dan

I agree with most of that. I was more or less saying that, though they may not be fascists, the organization as a whole certainly isnt democratic.

Ahnimus

Forgive me for saying this, but of all the countries in the world. Which one pushes nationalism the most? The United States of America!

Which one forces it's government on other countries? The United States of America!

Which one has a leader that wishes to be dictator? The United States of America!

Which countries leader is driven by religious and corporate ties? The United States of America!

The list goes on and on, but in all definitions or aspects of Fascism the USA fits in quite nicely. I don't mean to bash the USA too much, but most of what we are seeing in the Islamic world today is a direct result of US actions in the middle-east and the arab world. What we see is a result of fascism.

Think about it, here is what the US does. They see a country that doesn't operate on their level, perhaps they do something like cut off the hand of a theif or allow men to beat their wives. That's not a lot different than the US in the past and Capital Punishment is still practiced in some states. Is it right for the US who's hands are hardly clean to invoke upon it's equals it's own beliefs? No. Perhaps the US society has evolved and religion isn't as influential as it was in the past. Do you see the similarities? Perhaps the islamic states are like old version of the US, with a lot more outside pressure and interferrance from places like the US.

That's the way I see it. You make the bed, you sleep in it. Don't complain now because forced democracy and irrational sanctions don't work. They backfire, do you get as involved in your neighbours business?

NMyTree

NCfan wrote:

Facism: A totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life.

Judging from the stated goals of Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Queda, Islamic Jihad, the Taliban, etc... this is what they want. To establish an Islamic Caliphate that has no outside intervention.

That's exactly what the Islamic extremists want. If it walks like a duck.......quack...quack.


Although, Bush throwing out yet another ill-advised catch phrase, such as that one, in light of some of the things this administration has been doing; seems rather ignorant, manipulative and hypocritical.

state of fuckin up

You freaks are on the wrong message board...

Ahnimus

state of fuckin up wrote:

You freaks are on the wrong message board...

Oh is this the shallow one-liner board?

state of fuckin up

When you talk political on Islamic Facism.

RainDog

NCfan wrote:

I see where you are coming from, but just becuase we have a bad administration does not change the fundamental nature of our country. We were founded upon the ideals of freedom and liberty, regardless of whose in the White House. Our congress voted for the war, so you can't blame that on Bush and claim that God is what our country is fighting for now.

It's one thing to have a government that puts "In god we trust" on the money or in the pledge of alleigance, or makes you swear to God in a court, doesn't appropriate money for stem cell research, outlaws sodomy and won't let homosexuals get married....

But it something ENTIRELY different to have a government hang homosexuals and adulters, whip and beat women who don't cover their bodies or show too much skin, outlaw all reglieons besides Islam, behead "infidels", sanction female genital mutilation, ban certain music/words.....

In fact, it's just insane that people talk about Bush being the "Hitler" and the worlds most dangerous man - when he opposes regimes that govern in the above-mentioned way.

Some people would have you think we're trying to nuke Switzerland or something... but he is just trying to check the influence of regimes like Iran and Syria.

Is he going about it the right way? Mostly no. Is he a jack-ass? Mostly yes...

But to promote such views that WE are the fascist and Bush is Hitler is just reprehensible....

Other than to occasionally amuse myself (and incense some of my Republican co-workers), I don't compare Bush to Hitler. And I don't think we've reached fascism yet.

But I say "yet" because the religious right in this country is fiercely nationalistic, and certainly has a fascistic streak a mile wide. They also command a good deal more power here than many like to admit. I hope they've reached the functional apex of their movement with George W. Bush (a movement that began consolidating into a political force thirty five or so years ago); but I know they won't go away without a fight. And they've got more than a few champions in our political sphere.

What I'm saying, and I think I mentioned this in another post, is that the reason we don't have beheadings and what-not here isn't because Christianity or Judaism is somehow superior to Islam - as some have opined. Instead, it is because of our belief in "the ideals of freedom and liberty" coupled with the relative comfort we enjoy in this country. Subject us to the same environment that many in the Middle East have to deal with on a regular basis, and you'd see that the fundamentalists in this country would be indistinguishable from the Muslim fundamentalists of the Middle East.

Except for the beards, of course.

What we need to do, if we're going to go on "checking the influence" of authoritarian regimes, is make sure we don't do it in a way that only strengthens the resolve of Muslim fundamentalists. But, instead we practically validate everything they believe about us. To me, that makes Bush a bit more than a jack-ass.

Ahnimus

state of fuckin up wrote:

When you talk political on Islamic Facism.

What isn't political about the preconception of Islamic Fascism?

sultryevening

sliverstain wrote:

"President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"


Yeah, he sure did do it...

ok so if thats what Georgy Boy listens to - cant we just get someone to call him up

picture the conversation


" ring ring"

GB- "Prezident G here!"

G - "George. This is God. Go fuck off, and never come back"

GB- "Okely dokely, big fella."


and the jobs done!