Thursday, August 24, 2006

Good Night

Can't take credit for this ... but I forget where I saw it.

This should come as no surpise to those who read or listen to the hapless Jessica McBride. Islamofascist, their newest fun term for terrorists (I think it's used to divert attention from some conservative's love of jack boots) is a contradiction in terms, i.e.: fascism is a corporate government state, and Islamic fundamentalism is a call for an Islamic theocracy.

5 Swings of the bat:

grumps said...

Ahh, but it is a convenient smoke screen. If we're not fighting Al-Qaida, but instead a cabal of Islamic-Fascists, then Iran is just as good as Iraq, as Afghanistan was.

If we change the discussion to fighting Islamofascism then we're OBLIGATED to start bombing Tehran. Probably the last weekend in October.

Dad29 said...

The terms are not mutually exclusive.

There's no reason that a theocracy cannot be fascistic, nor that a fascist gummint cannot be a theocracy.

Try again.

Other Side said...

All you did was wix up your mords. As stated, you did not convince me what I wrote wasn't correct in the first place.

Both are separate forms of government.

Whallah! Try again.

Anonymous said...

I like these explanations:

"Fascism is nationalistic and Islamicism is hostile to nationalism. Fundamentalism is a transnational movement that is appealing to believers of all nations and races across national boundaries. There is no idea of racial purity as in Nazism. Islamicists have very little idea of the state. It is a religious movement, while Fascism in Europe was a secular movement. So if it's not what we really think of as nationalism, and if it's not really like what we think of as Fascist, why use these terms?"

- Roxanne Euben, a professor of political science at Wellesley College

"Islamofascism is nothing but an empty propaganda term. And wartime propaganda is usually, if not always, crafted to produce hysteria, the destruction of any sense of proportion. Such words, undefined and unmeasured, are used by people more interested in making us lose our heads than in keeping their own."

- Joseph Sobran, syndicated columnist


Dad29 said...

I don't disagree that the term is technically imprecise--but only in the very narrowest sense. It is true that Fascism as originally practiced was not 'religion-based,' and was 'nationalistic' as opposed to supra-national.

However, since Muhammedanism regards all lands in which it has (or HAD) a presence to be (in effect) part of the 'nation' of Islam. They STILL want Andalusia back, you knoow, and are choking on the Jewish and Christian presences in the Holy Land and Egypt.

And the governance is by Shari'a, which is more or less universal across Muslim denominations. So to say that "Islam has [a] very little idea of the State" is correct ONLY in the sense that governance under Shari'a is not "State" governance.

As to means, there is little difference between the Hitler/Mussolini/Stalin solution (simply kill all the objectors)and the one utilized by the MusloFascists.

They're nice enough to merely enslave non-Muslims who claim allegiance to the Old and New Testaments.

I don't think that's an exception which disproves the rule.