Rumsfeld- "Critics are morally and intellectually confused Nazi appeasers."

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I prefer the term Islamofascist which is overall pretty accurate.

No, it's not accurate. What do Islamists share in common with Mussolini?

I prefer the term Islamofascist which is overall pretty accurate.

The Christofascists are quite bad too.

Yes, of couse.  So many of them are flying planes into buildings and pulling off suicide bombings.  I read about it in the paper every day.  There's obviously no connection between radical islam and terrorism.....there's just as much of a chance that a terrorist belongs to any other religion, particularly Christianity.  Right?

that WAS a stupid comment on jfern's part, I'll admit. Still you do miss the point (as did he), in that radical Islam is not fascist. It's another awful totalitarian ideology of it's own. But it's not fascism.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

For examples of regimes that could be considered Islamofascist, something like Qaddafi's Libya could fit the bill, at least comes closer than al-Qaeda or Iran. But since Qaddafi has an Islamist insurgency in his own country trying to overthrow his regime (the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group), and he supported the Soviet Union over the mujahedin, and he gained his notierity by supporting mostly secular terrorist groups, it just underscores how silly it is to use such a term for a group such as al-Qaeda.

Sudan might fight the bill. The problem is, even in Sudan we don't see traditional fascism since the regime isn't built too much on nationalism or exhaltation of the state. Sudan is basically just a regime based on a mix of religious/ethnic supremicism than true fascism.

Some of the radical Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) and Albanian nationalists in the earlier 90s could possibly be called Islamofascists, they were certainly Muslims preaching a brand of fascism similar to that of the Bosnian Serb regime. However most would agree it is quite silly to call the Bosnian Serbs Christofascists, and pretty much the inverse is true here. Most of the Bosnian Serb leaders were only nominally Orthodox and there was no real religious infusion in their ideology at all, the same is pretty much true for the Muslim ultra-nationalists, they were hardly practicing Muslims at all and even if they made alliances with Islamic fundamentalists, this basically just an alliance of convenience.

Iran is not a fascist state, it's a traditional theocracy. Hardly the same thing. Now if say Ahmadinejad were to carry out a coup and depose the mullah regime and establish a new one under himself, then you might have what could be termed an Islamofascist regime. But for now it's not.

[freedomburns]

Very thoughtful and well-reasoned posts here. 

I like this article by Charles M. Evans.  He makes a good argument for why Islamofascist is an Orwellian term meant to drain meaning out of words.  He uses 14 points that Umberto Eco identified as marks of fascism in a 1995 article entitled, "Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt"

Who is the Fascist Here?

by Charles M. Evans
August 25, 2006

Recent public references to "Islamic fascists," a term used by George W. Bush and repeated often in the print media, suggest that the President and many writers have an inaccurate or at least incomplete understanding of fascism. This is not to suggest that there are no Islamic fascists, rather to point out that the people on whom Bush wishes to hang the term do not fit the description. Perhaps that does not trouble Bush nor some of the op-ed authors who understand that the use of the word "fascist" is effective propaganda. Even if people are not sure what a fascist is, most know that it is not a positive term, and for many in this administration and those who support them this is sufficient justification to use it. Calling one's opponents unpleasant names is known in philosophy as an ad hominem argument, and it is recognized as a logical fallacy. Sound logic requires us to understand that bad people and bad ideas are not synonymous, and in the same way, good people do not always have sound ideas. But, bad logic often makes for good propaganda.

Politicians, as George Orwell pointed out to us, are particularly adept at draining meaning from language and refilling words with emotional rather than cognitive content. Careful writers of all political persuasions, perhaps especially conservatives, protest the debasement of language by our leaders and public figures. The process has become so ubiquitous that many, if not most, people do not notice that the words they hear or read mean something other than what the dictionary informs us. Therefore, President Bush can call members of Islamic terrorist organizations fascists, and neither he nor most of his listeners recognize any irony in his name-calling. Fortunately, President Bush's misuse of language in referring to Islamic fascists has not escaped attention by some in the popular press.
<...>

fb

[freedomburns]

I prefer the term Islamofascist which is overall pretty accurate.

The Christofascists are quite bad too.

Yes, of couse.  So many of them are flying planes into buildings and pulling off suicide bombings.  I read about it in the paper every day.  There's obviously no connection between radical islam and terrorism.....there's just as much of a chance that a terrorist belongs to any other religion, particularly Christianity.  Right?

So your point is that flying planes into building and doing suicide bombings makes you a fascist?  Totally and completely WRONG.

What is mostly does is make you dead. 

[J. J.]

n in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

1.)  Powerful and Continuing Nationalism: Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

Like Churchill did in WW II and LBJ did in Viet Nam.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ditto.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Funny I don't remember Jews, Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, Socialist, or Freemasons flying airplains into buildings.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If military service is so "glamorous," why the recruitment shortfalls? And what "widespread" domestic problems?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Condi is just one hell of guy, right?  So's Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton (well maybe Hillary)?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Every hear of Daily Kos, CBS, or Kieth Obermann?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must have been high on 9/11.  That's where the fear came from.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why do I get Eid postage stamps then?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like Ken Lay, Martha Stewart? 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The SEIU, a traditionally very leftist union, left the AFL-CIO and has been organizing more workers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The government hasn't raided any Mensa meetings that I know of.  One Penn Professor won't be teaching, because child porn was found on his computer, for the second time.  Ah, that's fascism for you, opposing child pornography.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe SCOTUS, that ultra liberal bastion (that's sarcasm), has ruled against holding people as enemy combatants.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like Hillary heading Bill's health care proposals, those numerous "Friends of Bill," or like JFK appointing his brother to the Cabinet.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only one that has been seen recently was Democratic operatives vandalizing vans in WI, and Casey, Junior trying to keep third party candidates off the ballot.

I'm so happy you've pointed out Fascocrats activities.

[Citizen James]

Part of the problem is that the term fascism doesn't really have more than a vague definition.   I think it's pretty much in agreement that fascism is highly authoritarian in nature, tends to stress ultra-nationalism, and total loyalty to the leader or leaders of a nation.  However, if it weren't for the tendency for fascists to loudly denounce anything liberal as socialism, people like Stalin could probably be included in such a group.

The term 'islamofasicst' is a coined term, and is even more vague.  At best, it could be considered a portmandu for Islamic fascist, and indicitive of individuals such as Bin Laden who yearn for a new caliphate in which all Islamic nations (that is, nations in which a majority of the population is Muslim - especially those in which there is a signifigant entanglement between islamic and secular laws)

At worst, it is a term used to imply that all muslims are fascists and henceforth evil - thus playing directly into the hands of Bin Laden by framing this as a war of peoples, as opposed to a war against a small group of millitant cowards who hide among the general populus.

As for Rummy, I think he's committing a variation of Goodwin's law.  Or perhaps more formally stated an 'association falacy', coupled with basic namecalling.

The trick is what things are implied in his statement are, if you think things through, absurd, but might seem to make sense at a momentary glance.

1, In the runnup to WWII there were people who wished to stay away from war (along with others who wanted to delay the day that war came to their doorstep and thus cynically looked the other way while Hitler ran rampant over other nations while building up their own millitary).

2.  These individuals, known as appeasers, are generally looked down upon by history.

3. Some people consider the war in Iraq to be poorly managed, and believe that it takes resources away from hunting down and eliminating terrorists.

4.  Because they do not believe that invading Iraq (a secular totaltarian dictatorship) is as important as fighting terrorism, Rumsfield refers to them as intelectually and morally confused, and attempts to associate people who critisize the invasion of a weak nation with few if any ties to terrorism with those who spoke against fighting against one of the worlds largest millitary powers who were actively engaging in the unprovoked conquest of other nations.

At best, Rumsfield is being intelectually dishonest and tossing out the sort of third rate propiganda that one would associate more with an angry fourteen year old than a high ranking statesman.

At worst, he's completely lost his mind and any connection to reality.

[??????????]

Why not make a comment about the intellectual dishonesty your fellow Californian is committing with all his posts about "Bush = NAZI OMG!!" ?

[Citizen James]

Why not make a comment about the intellectual dishonesty your fellow Californian is committing with all his posts about "Bush = NAZI OMG!!" ?

Mostly because he's just some nut on the internet, rather than SecDef.

[freedomburns]

Why not make a comment about the intellectual dishonesty your fellow Californian is committing with all his posts about "Bush = NAZI OMG!!" ?

Mostly because he's just some nut on the internet, rather than SecDef.

HEY!

I resemble that remark!

:Throws gauntlet down on the ground: