[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
You either want to speak the language properly,or you don’t.The devil’s in the details,isn’t it?
[/quote]
Properly by what standards?
[quote]
But please explain to me how an English teacher sees the point in making up words?
And the use of language doesn’t have anything whatsoever to do with the perspective of the argument.
So keep masturbating…[/quote]
I was implying that I could see the objection from an English teachers point of view but not from the point of view of a Poly Sci.
So Islamic Facism is ok but Islamofacism is not? They are both just as descriptive.
Cool. Then please explain what they describe and how that relates to fascism.
Again, to me Islamofacism is describing a particular type of facism. I don’t relate Islamism to facism. I don’t relate facism to Islamism.
Facism is an authoritarian political ideology. Islamofacisim to me simply provides detail on the what type of political ideology.
Yeah, fascism is an authoritarian political philosophy.
So are theocracies or at least they depend on them.
That does not make them fascist though.
There is nothing fascist about Islamo Fascism.
It is just a stupid buzzword that works because people think they know what it means.
Right now both Europe and America are probably more fascist than Iran and Saudi Arabia.
[/quote]
“The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism–ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.” FDR
So Islamic Facism is ok but Islamofacism is not? They are both just as descriptive.
Cool. Then please explain what they describe and how that relates to fascism.
Again, to me Islamofacism is describing a particular type of facism. I don’t relate Islamism to facism. I don’t relate facism to Islamism.
Facism is an authoritarian political ideology. Islamofacisim to me simply provides detail on the what type of political ideology.
Yeah, fascism is an authoritarian political philosophy.
So are theocracies or at least they depend on them.
That does not make them fascist though.
There is nothing fascist about Islamo Fascism.
It is just a stupid buzzword that works because people think they know what it means.
Right now both Europe and America are probably more fascist than Iran and Saudi Arabia.
“The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism–ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.” FDR
You see the connection? [/quote]
Do you see the irony?
Former President Herbert Hoover, who developed the fascist theme, said that the NRA was too closely linked to the “fascism” that big business industrialists wanted to impose:
�?? Among the early Roosevelt fascist measures was the National Industry Recovery Act (NRA) of June 16, 1933 .... [these ideas] were first suggested by Gerard Swope (of the General Electric company)...
They were adopted by the United States Chamber of Commerce. During the campaign of 1932, Henry I. Harriman, president of that body, urged that I agree to support these proposals, informing me that Mr. Roosevelt had agreed to do so. I tried to show him that this stuff was sheer fascism; that it was a remaking of Mussolini’s “corporate state” and refused to agree to any of it. He informed me that in view of my attitude, the business world would support Roosevelt with money and influence. That for the most part proved true.�??
Critics of Roosevelt’s New Deal often liken it to fascism. Roosevelt’s numerous defenders dismiss this charge as reactionary propaganda; but as Wolfgang Schivelbusch makes clear, it is perfectly true. Moreover, it was recognized to be true during the 1930s, by the New Deal’s supporters as well as its opponents.
When Roosevelt took office in March 1933, he received from Congress an extraordinary delegation of powers to cope with the Depression.
The broad-ranging powers granted to Roosevelt by Congress, before that body went into recess, were unprecedented in times of peace. Through this "delegation of powers," Congress had, in effect, temporarily done away with itself as the legislative branch of government.
The only remaining check on the executive was the Supreme Court. In Germany, a similar process allowed Hitler to assume legislative power after the Reichstag burned down in a suspected case of arson on February 28, 1933. (p. 18).
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Why don’t we call it plain, old Islam and drop the fascism part. It’s reality. [/quote]
But that would destroy the myth that religion is first and foremost a form of good and that everyone interpreting it as it is written is a dangerous fanatic twisting the words of God for his benefit.
In other words that would threaten the American Christian right.
[quote]orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Why don’t we call it plain, old Islam and drop the fascism part. It’s reality.
But that would destroy the myth that religion is first and foremost a form of good and that everyone interpreting it as it is written is a dangerous fanatic twisting the words of God for his benefit.
In other words that would threaten the American Christian right.[/quote]
It depends on what the religion claims. I’m not quite sure Jesus was a dangerous fanatic. He certainly didn’t lead any military.
The “American Christian right” nowadays is composed of guys like Rick Warren and Rob Bell - basically social gospel preachers. I wouldn’t worry too much about them. Dobson is in decline and Falwell is dead.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Critics of Roosevelt’s New Deal often liken it to fascism. Roosevelt’s numerous defenders dismiss this charge as reactionary propaganda; but as Wolfgang Schivelbusch makes clear, it is perfectly true. Moreover, it was recognized to be true during the 1930s, by the New Deal’s supporters as well as its opponents.
It was fascism. [/quote]
Correct. Facism is not a country run by private industry despite what the leftists think. Facism is a state where “private ownership” is allowed but all reasources are controlled by central planning. We are getting close in this country.
An Islamic state would be a theocracy if islam were only a religion and the church ran the state. It is much more than a religion.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
An Islamic state would be a theocracy if islam were only a religion and the church ran the state. [/quote]
Do you even know what theocracy means?
Anyway, there is no equivalent to the Church in Islam. Central authority is frowned upon, and shura (i.e: democratic consultation) is praised. It’s a pity that those who claim to be the guardians of the religion, disregard one of its core teachings. But hey, power corrupt absolutely, right?
I’d say that Islam is an attitude, a mindset, a way of life, etc. But at the end of the day, and as long as you define religion as a set of beliefs and practices (that’s the consensus in reference books anyhow), then it’s hard to pick anything related to Islam that doesn’t fit that picture.
You’re a smart fellow. We would all benefit if you would please put more thought into your posts. What you wrote in the previous post seems like a regurgitation of something you heard/read.
[quote]lixy wrote:
dhickey wrote:
An Islamic state would be a theocracy if islam were only a religion and the church ran the state.
Do you even know what theocracy means?
[/quote]
I thought i did. I am not sure where you think I am incorrect. I guess the church doesn’t have to run the state but generally in the theocracy those that govern also hold similar positions in the church.
What I meant by church is an authority structure with in the religion. I am not familiar with shura.
I didn’t say it wasn’t a religion. I said it is more than a religion.
[quote]
You’re a smart fellow. We would all benefit if you would please put more thought into your posts. What you wrote in the previous post seems like a regurgitation of something you heard/read. [/quote]
I am not sure what you mean. If I didn’t pick things up from reading, what would be the point?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Why don’t we call it plain, old Islam and drop the fascism part. It’s reality. [/quote]
Here is why, and here is the value of the neologism.
Let us suppose that someone had no bigotry to Islam or Muslims, but hated the idea of some of its adherents’ relentless and fanatic enmity to the West and its culture. Now Orion would look in his BIg Book of Sophistry, and because he hates the concept, would deny the existence of the word, “Islamofascism.” Poof! For Orion, the word is gone and the concept cannot exist.
But the reality, PRC, is that Islamism, or Islamo-fascism, while it derives its cultural justification from Islam and jihad, is not identical to Islam. It is the drive to construct a monolithic way of life, to deprive others of plural rights, and to destroy the values of the West, that denotes Islamism, and that puts our culture in peril.
Intellectual curiosity aside, I do not care about the tenets of Islam or who they may enslave. But I want no fanatic threatening me in its name.
(Comparing to FDR to fascism is errant nonsense. Lets not be childish here. A powerful central government is not the same as a Fascist state.)
Oh, and I am sure Orion or DysLixy will make some sly and arrogant comments, and in the fashion of the Anti-American Bigot, make some facile and derogatory comparison to current American life and culture.
No doubt my intelligence will be impugned. But what they cannot deny is the reality of Islamic fanatacism, and how it threatens freedom–our freedom, and even theirs.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
lixy wrote:
dhickey wrote:
An Islamic state would be a theocracy if islam were only a religion and the church ran the state.
Do you even know what theocracy means?
I thought i did. I am not sure where you think I am incorrect. I guess the church doesn’t have to run the state but generally in the theocracy those that govern also hold similar positions in the church.[/quote]
“Theocracy is a form of government in which a ‘god’ or ‘deity’ is recognized as the supreme civil ruler. For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e., a church), replacing or dominating civil government.”
Do you see how wrong your statement was or do you need it broken down?
[quote]Anyway, there is no equivalent to the Church in Islam. Central authority is frowned upon, and shura (i.e: democratic consultation) is praised. It’s a pity that those who claim to be the guardians of the religion, disregard one of its core teachings. But hey, power corrupt absolutely, right?
What I meant by church is an authority structure with in the religion. [/quote]
I know what you meant. But in Islam, there is no such thing. The only authority is that of God. Now, seeing how the prophet Mohammed was divinely inspired when he recited the Quran, he gets authority points as well.
Nothing close to that of the Almighty, but enough to get some Muslims to do as he says. The caveat is that with the death of the prophet, Muslims were left with nobody to turn to (natures hates void). And that’s where the unscrupulous and charlatans came in to claim a piece of the cake.
It ranged from claims of blood relations (100% of Arab monarchies claim they descend from Mohammed - bollocks!), to Ali’s next of kin (read: Shi’a), saints, divinely inspired poets and the whole lot.
But even a casual reader of the Quran can see God warning of following anyone but Himself. Of course, once you realize that even in this day and age, most Muslims don’t know Arabic, much less read and write, you may start to understand what it is that those charlatans used for their scheme.
Literally, it’s the act of consulting one another before making decisions. In Islam (and more generally in the Arab culture), it’s a synonym of political consultation.
There’s a whole chapter in the Quran that was named after it.
“Those who hearken to their Lord, and establish regular Prayer; who (conduct) their affairs by mutual consultation; who spend out of what We bestow on them for Sustenance” [are praised] – Quran 42:38
[quote]It is much more than a religion.
I’d say that Islam is an attitude, a mindset, a way of life, etc. But at the end of the day, and as long as you define religion as a set of beliefs and practices (that’s the consensus in reference books anyhow), then it’s hard to pick anything related to Islam that doesn’t fit that picture.
I didn’t say it wasn’t a religion. I said it is more than a religion.[/quote]
I can read, you know.
My point was that you can’t say that it’s more than a religion, when religions are defined as “a set of beliefs and practices”. Everything in Islam (or Judaism, Buddhism and even scientology) falls in that description.
If you disagree, please illustrate what is it that, in you mind, makes Islam different from other religions and that prompted you to write that it is “more than a religion”.
[quote]You’re a smart fellow. We would all benefit if you would please put more thought into your posts. What you wrote in the previous post seems like a regurgitation of something you heard/read.
I am not sure what you mean. If I didn’t pick things up from reading, what would be the point?[/quote]
My point is that you seem to have good logical aptitudes. Because of that, I expect you not only to parse everything you read, see or hear through your brain, but also to keep critical eye for stinking BS. Something you clearly failed to do here. You picked up a couple of one-liners and it shows.
Look, the issue, to me, is simple. Did MOhammed and his band of buddies do all the things the terrorists do nowadays, i.e. beheadings, kidnappings, thefts, rape, murder? Yes. Is Mohammed “an excellent model of conduct” (Surah 33.21)? Yes.
Therefore Islam = Islamofascism, but the term “Islamofascism” is just an obfuscation of reality to allow for “moderate” Muslims and other unicorns and white whales. Islam has justified the actions we see the terrorists committing since Mohammed.
If orion wants to call me a bigot, fine. I don’t have a problem with that. I’m unabashedly bigoted against Islam, Nazism, and like doctrines that dwell in Jew hatred, paranoia, and military conquest. The difference between Nazism and Islam is that one lasted 20 years, while the other has lasted 1400 and has a much higher body count.
The sooner we Westerners, Hindus, and other infidels regain the balls to admit this simple truth, the better off we’ll be.
[quote]lixy wrote:
]"Theocracy is a form of government in which a ‘god’ or ‘deity’ is recognized as the supreme civil ruler. [/quote]
So the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the Islamic Revolutionary state in Iran are examples of a Theocracy which leans toward fascism?
You mean to tell us that Allah was NOT recognized as the supreme ruler by the Taliban. You mean to tell us that they did not employ Fascist-like control over their country?
Blowing up ancient hindu statues, treating women like second class citizens, making hindus wear indentifying markers on their clothing and the extermination of the Hazara minority all seem like things a fascist state would do.
They may technically have a theocracy. We gave it a name: Islamo-fascism.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Why don’t we call it plain, old Islam and drop the fascism part. It’s reality.
Here is why, and here is the value of the neologism.
Let us suppose that someone had no bigotry to Islam or Muslims, but hated the idea of some of its adherents’ relentless and fanatic enmity to the West and its culture. Now Orion would look in his BIg Book of Sophistry, and because he hates the concept, would deny the existence of the word, “Islamofascism.” Poof! For Orion, the word is gone and the concept cannot exist.
But the reality, PRC, is that Islamism, or Islamo-fascism, while it derives its cultural justification from Islam and jihad, is not identical to Islam. It is the drive to construct a monolithic way of life, to deprive others of plural rights, and to destroy the values of the West, that denotes Islamism, and that puts our culture in peril.
Intellectual curiosity aside, I do not care about the tenets of Islam or who they may enslave. But I want no fanatic threatening me in its name.
(Comparing to FDR to fascism is errant nonsense. Lets not be childish here. A powerful central government is not the same as a Fascist state.)
Oh, and I am sure Orion or DysLixy will make some sly and arrogant comments, and in the fashion of the Anti-American Bigot, make some facile and derogatory comparison to current American life and culture.
No doubt my intelligence will be impugned. But what they cannot deny is the reality of Islamic fanatacism, and how it threatens freedom–our freedom, and even theirs.[/quote]
You simply must learn the difference between sophistry and sophistication.
Not only were FDR measures fascist measures, and that was openly admitted by his followers and opponenst, I also did not post the American children doing the Roman salute for fun.
If you think you can simply dismiss this with a snippy post, good luck.
Do you aspire to be the Mick28 with brains?
Something must not be true therefore it cannot be true?
Want me to post about the American eugenics program next?
America flirted heavily with fascism, get over it.
No doubt my intelligence will be impugned. But what they cannot deny is the reality of Islamic fanatacism, and how it threatens freedom–our freedom, and even theirs.[/quote]
I do not deny Islamic fanaticism.
I do deny that they threaten my freedom.
They only threaten my life, my freedom is threatened by my and your governments reaction to a few maniacs in caves with AK´s.
And to be clear, they threaten my life as much as a random strike of lighting.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
]"Theocracy is a form of government in which a ‘god’ or ‘deity’ is recognized as the supreme civil ruler.
So the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the Islamic Revolutionary state in Iran are examples of a Theocracy which leans toward fascism?
You mean to tell us that Allah was NOT recognized as the supreme ruler by the Taliban. You mean to tell us that they did not employ Fascist-like control over their country?
Blowing up ancient hindu statues, treating women like second class citizens, making hindus wear indentifying markers on their clothing and the extermination of the Hazara minority all seem like things a fascist state would do.
They may technically have a theocracy. We gave it a name: Islamo-fascism. [/quote]
Ja, that is because you do not know what fascism is.
Where is the planned economy? The federal control of resources? The strong man at the top, the nationalism, the form of caesarism, the Marxist rhetoric?
No, they are a run of the mill, authoritarian, but not totalitarian (i.e again, not fascist) regime.
You simply must learn the difference between sophistry and sophistication.
Not only were FDR measures fascist measures, and that was openly admitted by his followers and opponenst, I also did not post the American children doing the Roman salute for fun.
If you think you can simply dismiss this with a snippy post, good luck.
Do you aspire to be the Mick28 with brains?
Something must not be true therefore it cannot be true?
Want me to post about the American eugenics program next?
America flirted heavily with fascism, get over it.
[/quote]
So predictable, and as predicted, from Our “Sophisticate” more crap and twaddle, impugn my intelligence, and tries to compare the US unfavorably to defend his bizarre notions.
SO our great Sophisticate, who has never set foot in the US, who derives “99,9” of his knowledge from the internet, who does not earn his money through work–well, he sites unnamed sources and “fascist measures,” not to advance a line of reasoning, but just as a display of US-bashing. Epithets. Empty.
(The American eugenics "program? " This has exactly what to to with FDR? The Democratic Party of the 1930s? A federal law? The subject of this of this thread? Was it a social movement of the same masticators who thought graham crackers were a cure for libido? That is fascism?)
You need to read a book, “Sophistiate” Orion. Any book, really. Try one on Lincoln, your erstwhile specialty. You have no clue about US history. Get over it.
