Incornsyucopia wrote:Can't believe no one has so far linked to this recent article by Stephen Schwartz - who coined the term "Islamofascism" - explaining its origin and justifying its relevance.

John Dean cites a different history of the term and discusses its use within a chronology of neocon rhetoric. He notes the move from "war on terror" to "global war on terror," from a "global struggle against violent extremism" to fighting "Islamofascism."

Katha Pollitt in explaining why the term is only going to create more enemies for America in the Islamic world, traced its use back to 1990, "when the writer and historian Malise Ruthven used 'Islamo-fascism' in the London Independent to describe the authoritarian governments of the Muslim world." She notes that, after 9/11, the term was picked up by neocons and pro-war pundits "to describe a broad swath of Muslim bad guys from Osama to the mullahs of Iran."

The term appears "analytic," Pollitt explains, "but really it's an emotional one, intended to get us to think less and fear more. It presents the bewildering politics of the Muslim world as a simple matter of Us versus Them." That, of course, is why it is being employed, although Pollitt does not think it "will win back the socially liberal 'security moms' who voted for Bush in 2004 but have recently been moving toward the Democrats." Nonetheless, "the word is already getting a big reaction in the Muslim world." Muslims of all persuasions are offended by it, including our friends and allies.

http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/dean/20060908.html

Crap, unless we also begin using Christianofascism, and Judeofascism.

One thing no one ever talks about is that these three are basically the same religion. They all worship the same god.

And they all believe in creationism.

Andrew L. wrote:

Incornsyucopia wrote:

Andrew,

I've been thinking about this post of yours for a few days and am wondering if you could oblige me in providing some specifics. What freedoms that the West is founded upon (of expression? religion? the whole Enlightenment kit and kaboodle?) are built upon imperialism, genocide and class war? What's the connection?

Do stop, Melvin. If I thought it would make any difference, I'd jot down a reading list for you. But I already know that "imperialism," "genocide," and "class war" are merely incidental, or immaterial, to your understanding of modern Western history.

Andrew! This is lazy and somewhat arrogant! "Foolish child, you would never understand..."

I know what you mean and I have sense as to what your answer would be, but give the guy a reeeee-tort!

I prefer Islamic Fascism as it makes clear that Fascism is the noun and Islamic the adjective.

It's an entirely accurate description. Those who would like this to come to pass envision a single growing state where all deviations from an extremely orthodox (and most would agree skewed and false) version of Islamic law are outlawed and eliminated in a violent way. It is the opposite of pluralism and advocates violations of human rights against those who disagree as a God commanded good.

It's not a myth or a western invention. It's a historical fact. The nationalism it requires references a proposed worldwide Islamic state. It's the Taliban expanded to include and merge all Moslem countries. It's what bin Laden and others have themselves said is the goal.

Saying Islamic Fascism is no more a misuse of the language than saying Islamic Art. The latter is art found in the Islamic world. The former is fascism found in the Islamic world.

(As an aside, I love the latter. It's the former I have a problem with.)


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source new!

islamic

adj : of or relating to or supporting Islamism; "Islamic art" [syn: Muslim, Moslem, Islamic]


fas?cism? [fash-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. (initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

Cranius wrote: Moreover, it's deceptive bullshit right-wing terminology. It lazily relies on the mythological status that fascism exercises in the popular imagination(opposed to historical realities) to tick the correct semiotic boxes in people's minds. It hopes to effect a lie and serve an agenda.

In my opinion, this is as good of an explanation of the motivations of people using a term like this as I have seen. I was thinking the same thing the other day when I was listening to the radio discussion of the "administration's" comparison of the current "War on Terror" to the fight against Nazism. They are just throwing negative terminology out there and hoping it sticks. Even the Bush supporters that were interviewed didn't buy it.

connor wrote:
Andrew! This is lazy and somewhat arrogant! "Foolish child, you would never understand..."

I know what you mean and I have sense as to what your answer would be, but give the guy a reeeee-tort!

I wasn't implying Melvin is not intelligent or learned enough to understand. Melvin is a very smart guy whom I've known for about 15 years. There are simply many topics it doesn't make sense for Melvin and I to debate. No amount of elaboration and verbiage on my part is going to alter his view of history. The same applies to Galanter. As Sparky once put it, he and I subscribe to "different narratives."

In any case, if terrorism is defined as the use of violence against civilians to achieve political ends, it has been an integral tool of the modern nation-state.

What was the "School of the Americas" (now the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation) if not a paramilitary (terrorist) training camp?

The FBI defines terrorism as ""violent acts... intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government, or affect the conduct of a government." This accurately defines what graduates of the SOA have demonstrated excellence in in El Salvador, Chile, Guatemala, Argentina, Ecuador, Honduras, Peru, and, currently, Colombia.

Andrew L. wrote:

connor wrote:
Andrew! This is lazy and somewhat arrogant! "Foolish child, you would never understand..."

I know what you mean and I have sense as to what your answer would be, but give the guy a reeeee-tort!

I wasn't implying Melvin is not intelligent or learned enough to understand. Melvin is a very smart guy whom I've known for about 15 years. There are simply many topics it doesn't make sense for Melvin and I to debate. No amount of elaboration and verbiage on my part is going to alter his view of history. The same applies to Galanter. As Sparky once put it, he and I subscribe to "different narratives."

Now I feel like an asshole...

connor wrote:
Now I feel like an asshole...

No, no. I like to be called on things, and there was no way for you to know that Melvin and I know each other in "real" life (actually, after I quit a band in high school, he stepped in as an infinitely more capable guitarist).

For what it's worth, re American terror, the entirety of Michael McClintock's Instruments of Statecraft: U.S. Guerrilla Warfare, Counterinsurgency and Counterterrorism, 1940-1990 (Pantheon, 1992) is online here. McClintock is the current Director of Research at Human Rights First and a former research director and 20-year veteran of Amnesty International.

There's an excerpt from State Terror and Popular Resistance in El Salvador ("Meeting Terror With Terror": a Policy of Failure) here.

From an official US military document (1962):

Civilians in the operational area may be supporting their own government or collaborating with an enemy occupation force. An isolation program designed to instill doubt and fear may be carried out, and a positive political action program designed to elicit active support of the guerrillas also may be effected. If these programs fail, it may become necessary to take more aggressive action in the form of harsh treatment or even abductions. The abduction and harsh treatment of key enemy civilians can weaken the collaborators’ belief in the strength and power of their military forces

rzs wrote:

Cranius wrote: Moreover, it's deceptive bullshit right-wing terminology. It lazily relies on the mythological status that fascism exercises in the popular imagination(opposed to historical realities) to tick the correct semiotic boxes in people's minds. It hopes to effect a lie and serve an agenda.

In my opinion, this is as good of an explanation of the motivations of people using a term like this as I have seen. I was thinking the same thing the other day when I was listening to the radio discussion of the "administration's" comparison of the current "War on Terror" to the fight against Nazism. They are just throwing negative terminology out there and hoping it sticks. Even the Bush supporters that were interviewed didn't buy it.

Yet another example of bypassing the subject at hand and dismissing a position based on the hypothetical (and usually denied) motivations of the speaker.

This is an incredibly popular sport on this board...and it's lazy thinking. It's a free pass to not even address potentially difficult objections to one's own position.

Islamic - adjective meaning from to the world of Islam. Fascism - the negation of pluralism, democracy and individual civil rights, and the promotion of a single leader, a single ideology, a single nation.

Which of these two words don't apply to the Taliban or bin Laden or al Qaeda?

galanter wrote:

rzs wrote:

Cranius wrote: Moreover, it's deceptive bullshit right-wing terminology. It lazily relies on the mythological status that fascism exercises in the popular imagination(opposed to historical realities) to tick the correct semiotic boxes in people's minds. It hopes to effect a lie and serve an agenda.

In my opinion, this is as good of an explanation of the motivations of people using a term like this as I have seen. I was thinking the same thing the other day when I was listening to the radio discussion of the "administration's" comparison of the current "War on Terror" to the fight against Nazism. They are just throwing negative terminology out there and hoping it sticks. Even the Bush supporters that were interviewed didn't buy it.

Yet another example of bypassing the subject at hand and dismissing a position based on the hypothetical (and usually denied) motivations of the speaker.

This is an incredibly popular sport on this board...and it's lazy thinking. It's a free pass to not even address potentially difficult objections to one's own position.

Islamic - adjective meaning from to the world of Islam. Fascism - the negation of pluralism, democracy and individual civil rights, and the promotion of a single leader, a single ideology, a single nation.

Which of these two words don't apply to the Taliban or bin Laden or al Qaeda?

To start with, fascism is a system of government. Neither bin Laden nor al Qaeda is a governmental body or political party. They are, at least ostensibly, involved in religious zealout style terrorism.
When discussing a term like this, I think it is at least relevant in the scope of discussion to deal with the interests of those using it, don't you?