Champion Rabbit wrote:NOT CRAP.

It's a llama, see.

A fucking llama.

See?

In your FACE!!

Llama fashions? It's llama fashions, right?

Rimbaud III wrote:This totalitarian impulse is one that extends beyond the desire to impose Sharia rule on Arab states alone. The idea behind the khilafah (the 'caliphate') is that the entire world should and will be converted by the sword. So in this sense this strain of Islam is fascistic. Sure, it's a historically and academically inaccurate way of describing them, but it's damn close.

Whilst I understand where you're coming from, and am able to make some concessions on this issue (namely because I've just noticed a sticker, on a no parking sign outside my front door, urging true muslims to abstain from voting), I still feel the terminology needs more precision.

Wether you call someone a islamofascist, judeofascist or feminazi you are still distorting a neutral term with a hyperbolic pejoritive suffix. The danger is that you will alienate a broader group of people through the associative connotations.

For instance if you were to call your political opponents 'girly men', you could well end-up alienating your entire audience. Now what sort of brawn-head would want to do that?

The analogy of medeival Caliphate is much more pertinent than that of the Third Reich, because most fundamentalists would regard this as their true paradigm. A paradigm that is both accepted in our view and theirs.

Itchy Mcgoo wrote:This is a clumsy term, but the idea of a widely used name that reinforces that there are political aims to what Islamic fundamentalist terrorists do appeals to me.

'Bastards', perhaps.

Rimbaud III wrote:Llama fashions? It's llama fashions, right?

Do I have to think of everything around here?!?

Isn't it enough that I got the 'Llama' part covered!?!?!?

Here! Have some more of these: '?!?!?!?'

Yeesh.

Champion Rabbit wrote:

Rimbaud III wrote:Llama fashions? It's llama fashions, right?

Do I have to think of everything around here?!?

Isn't it enough that I got the 'Llama' part covered!?!?!?

Here! Have some more of these: '?!?!?!?'

Yeesh.

Rabbit, mate, you're well nuts.

Rimbaud III wrote:
Rabbit, mate, you're well nuts.

Ha! You'd like that!

...

solum wrote:

in another dimension, tmidgett wrote:
i've said this one million times on this board, but to believe [the republican party], for example, is a political organization is a real stretch

political events give them an excuse and a handy framework, but the history of [the US right wing]is not filled with political activism. it's filled with a desire to destroy any element of [non]western culture and install [commercial]law (as defined by extremists) at any cost. that's not really a political impulse, as we think of it normally.

i have to admit i'm confused as to your point, in altering my post to say something i didn't say

i assume there is a point

I agree. If you are were trying the "change the words, see how silly you are thing" it didn't work.

The Republican Party is a political organisation, that is what it is...

The history of any political movement, left, right or sideways is always filled with political activism... And beyond Ann Coulter -who is a total fucking idiot- even the most hard-right people in the US aren't close to "wanting to destroy any element of non-Western culture". Who the fuck are they going to get to make the useless products we buy...

Not even a "nice try" on that one...

I interpreted it not as a "change the words - see how silly you are", but as a "this also applies to the Republican party". Still, it falls a little flat. I guess the parallels between the goals of the GOP and aQ are somewhat fair, but other than that, the two have practically nothing in common.

And if it was a "change the words - see how silly you are", then it falls even flatter.