Skip to main content

View Diary: United States vetoes UN ceasefire call (90 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't like the use of the term Islamofascists (7+ / 0-)

    You're borrowing wholesale a wingnut term. They'll love you for it.

    And it's a false term, in what way can they be defined as fascist?

    The wingers use the term because its SCARY sounding, not because it means anything.

    •  Islamofascist is accurate (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cecrops Tangaroa, cris0000

      The term Islamofascist is accurate for two reasons.  First, we know that the Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc., institute totalitarian governments whenever and whereever they come to power.  There are simply no rights and no privacy.  The government regulates every detail of individual behavior.

      On these grounds alone, it is accurate to call them Islamofascists.

      The second reason is historical.  During World War II, most, if not all Arab governments aligned themselves with the Nazis.  In areas like Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo, the Muslim minority aligned themselves with the Nazis against their fellow countrymen.

      The Serbians, of course, fought the Nazis bitterly, but the Muslims were a fifth column.

      Do you understand now why there is such hostility between the Serbians and the Muslims in former Yugoslavia?  Do you understand now why it is absurd to compare the Serbians to the Nazis, when the Serbians fought the Nazis, and the Muslims were Nazi collaborators?

      I do not give a fuck if the right-wing nutcases use the term "Islamofascist".  In this particular case, the term is both historically accurate, and an accurate description of the type of government advocated by Al Qaeda, et al.

      •  umm... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eiron

        They are not governments. You just love wingnut talk don't you?

        The term Islamofascist is accurate for two reasons.  First, we know that the Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc., institute totalitarian governments whenever and whereever they come to power.  There are simply no rights and no privacy.  The government regulates every detail of individual behavior.

        •  you are a terrorist sycophant (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cecrops Tangaroa, cris0000

          Please stop trying to paint me as a right-wing nutcase.

          Who exactly are not governments???  The Taliban most certainly were a government.

          Whenever Al Qaeda in Iraq takes over a town, they immediately institute the type of totalitarian government I described.

          Have you read anything at all by Osama bin Laden or any other terrorist supporters?  They all envision an Islamic theocracy in which freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. are non-existent.

          You want to insult me by painting me as a right-wing nutcase?  Fine.

          It really looks to me like you are a terrorist sycophant.

          •  By your definition then... (0+ / 0-)

            all the warlords in Afganistan (or anywhere else for that matter) are governments or mini governments. Hell, the street gangs in this country would be fascists by your sloppy definition.

            They're not, they're armed gangs.

            As as to WW2 alliances, I very much doubt the Muslims chose one side over the other because they liked the concept of fascism.  Other considerations came into play.

            You're on the wrong side of this one and digging your hole ever deeper.

            •  how long will you dwell on this? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Cecrops Tangaroa, cris0000

              all the warlords in Afganistan (or anywhere else for that matter) are governments or mini governments. Hell, the street gangs in this country would be fascists by your sloppy definition.

              The definition is not at all sloppy.  It is very precise.  Yes, many of the Afghan warlords can also be accurately described as Islamofascists.

              They're not, they're armed gangs.

              Bullshit.  The Taliban was more than an armed gang.  They were the official government of Afghanistan.  They are the only case I know of where Islamic fundamentalists have taken over an entire country, so the Taliban example is extremely relevant.

              When Al Qaeda takes over a town in Iraq, they are more than an armed gang, they are the only government the town has.

              As as to WW2 alliances, I very much doubt the Muslims chose one side over the other because they liked the concept of fascism.  Other considerations came into play.

              And you know this how???  You are a clear historical illiterate, but you doubt your precious Muslims actually embraced fascism.  Who gives a fuck if there were other considerations?  They still aligned themselves with the Nazis and against their fellow countrymen.  That makes them Nazis and traitors in my book.

              Other considerations?  Indeed.  The Nazis were exterminating the Jews, and the Muslims just loved that.

              You're on the wrong side of this one and digging your hole ever deeper.

              LMFAO!  Because I disagree with you, I am on the wrong side of the issue???  I think not.

              You are the one who is digging a hole, not me.  Every post you make makes it clearer and clearer that you are indeed a terrorist sycophant.

              Look.  I have given you very precise reasons why the term "Islamofascist" is accurate.  You have said absolutely nothing to refute my reasons.

              Instead, you choose to paint me as a right-wing nutcase.

      •  'Islamo' OK, but 'fascists' is classic hate talk (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fly, Eiron

        For just that reason, the British Parliament banned use of the word "fascist" during debate time.

        It was felt that the word had no useful content and was just flung on anything 'evil' or 'corporate' or something.

        In any case, the usefulness of terms is more about how others read them than what and how you think people should read them. Looked at that way, "Islamofascists" is a loser cuz it doesn't have a stable meaning for everyone you're writing for, so it mangles communication with some of your readers.

        Thom Hartmann or Stephanie Miller for President, alternatives to the wonks and whimps

        by fairleft on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 11:14:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh bullshit (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cecrops Tangaroa, cris0000

          It is not classic hate talk.  It is an accurate description of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hizbollah.

          Get a clue will you? You don't bother to refute anything I said in the post to which you are replying.  You just perjoratively accuse me of hate talk.

          The term "Islamofascist" is both historically accurate, and an accurate description of the type of government Islamic fundamentalists institute whenever they come to power, from the town level on up.

          You are really carrying political correctness to an extreme.  These are thoroughly evil people, and they deserve a perjorative label to make that clear.

          •  You wrote an... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KathleenM1

            otherwise excellent diary

            but poisoned it with careless words.

            My opinion of this diary is dropping by the post, you're destroying your own credibility.

            •  you really are a terrorist sycophant (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cris0000

              Look, because my terminology offends you does not mean that it is innacurate.

              You have done absolutely nothing to refute my reasons for using the term "Islamofascist".

              Instead you want to paint me as a right-wing nutcase.

              What is your major malfunction?

          •  Supporting evidence... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            donguillermo

            Mufti Amin al-Husayni

            He was one among thousands.

            Lies, Torture and the American Way! (My Apologies to Superman)

            by Darksyde888 on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 12:02:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Why not just call them Islamic Fundamentalists? (0+ / 0-)

            That seems to be a term you use interchangeably with Islamofascists, so that might be a good term to use if your goal is communication. Anyway, I was just trying to be helpful, but you had to use the intimidating swear word, so I've had enough of your fascist style of communication. :-)

            You're hopeless anyway, when you lump Hamas in with Al Queda. Hamas that supports and runs in Palestine's democratic electoral system? Isn't being anti-democraty pretty fundamental to any conception of 'fascism'? And, you seem to consider the Bosniak government in the section of Bosnia it controls "Islamofascist," although it also participates in and supports the democratic elections there.

            You're hopelessly mixed up, but you might want to make a list of criteria and not be such a fascist and remember that exceptions disprove whatever classification scheme you decide on.

            Thom Hartmann or Stephanie Miller for President, alternatives to the wonks and whimps

            by fairleft on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 06:50:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Here's Some History, Guillermofascist (0+ / 0-)

            The term Islamofascist is accurate for two reasons.  First, we know that the Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc., institute totalitarian governments whenever and whereever they come to power. There are simply no rights and no privacy.  The government regulates every detail of individual behavior.

            The Islamofascist list you sent to me was “Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hizbollah.” Hamas and Hizbollah both support and run in the democratic elections. That’s very different from WWII “fascist” governments that outlawed elections. So which is it, when we’re talking fascist, democratic or anti-democratic. Exceptions mean you need two classifications, Islamofascists and Islamodemocrats. Hezbollah was part of Lebanon’s government for many years, and never supported this “no rights and no privacy” concept. Again, are you going to exclude them from Islamofascism? The same with the new Hamas government in Palestine: they have not instituted a totalitarian, “no rights and no privacy” political system, so you have to exclude them from your classification too.

            The second reason is historical.  During World War II, most, if not all Arab governments aligned themselves with the Nazis.  In areas like Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo, the Muslim minority aligned themselves with the Nazis against their fellow countrymen.

            The Serbians, of course, fought the Nazis bitterly, but the Muslims were a fifth column.

            Most (again that most word, which destroys singular classification schemes) Arab ‘governments’ aligned themselves with the Nazis because the Nazis opposed the British, who were occupying and brutally exploiting most of Arabia. There were a wide variety of Arab political movements, some socialist and sympathetic to the Soviet Union, some democratic socialist like the regime that arose in Iran, and many “Arab socialist” like Nasser’s movement in Egypt. A minority were religion-based and/or monarchical. Again, historically speaking, most of these array of political movements were on the opposite side of the moon as far as secularism is concerned, compared to Al Queda and the Taliban. But you’re calling that era’s movements and ‘governments’ the historical precedent for today’s “Islamofascism”.

            By the way, I have no sympathy for the Muslims/Bosniaks of the old or new Yugoslavia, but again they allied themselves with the Nazis for political reasons internal to Yugoslavia. And, more important, many Bosniak Yugoslavs fought against the Nazi occupiers. Tito’s resistance was multi-ethnic and had members from many different backgrounds. In fact, one of the resistance’s great enemies were the Serb monarchists. Reality in Yugoslavia was mixed up and complex, and labeling all Muslims/Bosniaks as Nazi supporters is a lie and an insult to many honorable resistance fighters.

            Okay, I hope this little historical review changes your ways.

            Thom Hartmann or Stephanie Miller for President, alternatives to the wonks and whimps

            by fairleft on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 07:15:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site