I simply suggest that if you want to say Taliban then you use the word "Taliban", if you want to say Al Qaeda, just say "Al Qaeda"
they are broad enough but still narrow down to some pretty different stuff out there that neither you or me can correctly and wholly grasp

galanter wrote:They made flying kites illegal.

And chess sets. And alcohol too, right?

I would say it's crap. They are fundamentalists, and not facists. Fascism is when corporations controll the government, or there is a clear collusion between government and corporate/industrialist interests... Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy are good examples.

These are Islamic fundamentalists. They believe that everything in the Koran must be taken literally, just like Christian fundamentalists believe everything in the Bible must be taken literally.

The dudes who remodelled my condo were Jehova's Witnesses. Very nice guys, and totally harmless, but at the same time, I was shocked with their view of the Bible. I suggested they rent the movie "Inherit the Wind".

Anywho, the "fascist" bit is just to stir up support for the war -- to make it look like we're doing something worthwhile out there, instead of making things even worse.

After Spain was attacked, they pulled out. Smart move. After all, Bin Laden even said the reason he commissioned the attack was that he did not approve of U.S. Military presense in Saudi Arabia. He also mentioned the Bush regime, and that even though not everyone in the U.S. supports Bush, Americans put him in power and must pay for the consequences. With this sort of thing well known, I am dumbfounded by why this ABC mini-series is blaming Clinton.

He wanted the military bases out of there. Bush actually did pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia (he gave in to Bin Laden), on the same day he announced the end of the war on that aircraft carrier... It was all done on the down low.

I don't want military bases in Saudi Arabia. They are filthy rich over there, and they can buy some of our old muskets and spitfire prop plane and have at it themselves, or pay some imported non-citizen-with-no-rights-Arab to do it for them (the Saudi citizens are so rich they don't even wipe their own butts)

Anyway, this administration refrains from describing these people as "fundamentalists" because people would be confused -- they would think Pat Robertson was involved, but he's too busy doing 2000 pound leg presses in his Jesus gymnasium.

galanter wrote:

rzs wrote: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.

Erm...you do realize that Al Qaeda + Taliban was both a government and a country...a Islamic fascist country...right?

I realize the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan, that is why I didn't include them in my observation.
As far as Al Qaeda, I have never seen them characterized as the government of any country or even a political party. I have only seen them described as a terrorist organiztion, albeit the most highly organized and dangerous terrorist organization in the world. I know that they had a relationship with the Taliban, and may very well have a relationship with other governments (possibly Pakistan, as Bin Laden is supposedly now hiding there), but have not heard they were actually in power in any discernable way. In fact, it never seems as though Bin Laden is concerned with making a political impact in the country he lives in. His terrorist ambitions seem to be international He seems to have gone from Saudi Arabia to Sudan to Afghanistan to Pakistan, depending on whoever would allow him to live there.
So, Galanter, I apologize if I was mistaken in this impression. These were my impressions of the situation. Please steer me in the direction of journalism that contradicts these views if possible. If I am wrong, I would like to read some more accurate info.

Heard this on NPR today. A brief, but good discussion of the impact that characterizing people using terms like "Islamofascism" can have on the average Muslim. At the beginning of the audio they even mention the term specifically.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=6053457

Fascism is a radical political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.

You need corporations, industry, etc. to be a fascist country. You see, Bin Laden can't make the trains run on time, because they're blown up or never existed.

Even in a nation like Pakistan, towards the border, it's a little disputed. That's why that mutt Musharaf is licking Taliban butt, so he won't "git blowed up" as the current administration would put it.

I prefer "Muslim Fundamentalists" because it brings awareness to our own fundamentalists, and puts them on the same level... You know, the people who blow up abortion clinics and federal buildings.

I can also accept "Muslim Extremists".

But Fascism is just the wrong word. It's like calling America a democracy, when in reality it is a republic. We don't vote on policy. We elect a representative, who choses to represent the entities who fund his/her campaign.

To me, it just makes Bush look even dumber than he is. Some say it is an act to endear the common man. Some say he partied a bit too much and the coke caused minor strokes in his brain (which is what happens!). I think it's a combination of the latter and the fact that he is an old money elite type person who never had the slightest inclination to anything academic.

galanter wrote:Islamic Fascism is a very simple term, and it doesn't require deep analysis. Certainly no amount of saying "*Bush* is the fascist" or historical navel gazing is going to erase the fact that "Islamic Fascism" describes well the mindset of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Again, no, it is only an accurate description if you like to use words without bringing their meanings along.

Theocracy is a far too vague term. It's entirely possible, at least in theory, for a theocracy to exist in a peaceful way and treat people kindly.

The people in question are on record as saying killing "non-believers" *anywhere* is a blessed pursuit.

These are people who thought it good practice to beat women in the streets with sticks if they were to laugh.

They made flying kites illegal.

Those who don't like "Islamic Fascism" should suggest some other two or three word phrase that is both more accurate and descriptive.

I can't think of one.

Any phrase would be more accurate, since what you continue to describe is not and never will be part of the definition of "fascism." Banning kites does not make you more or less fascist, unless you claim that a racially-differentiated foe is aided by the employment of kites to destroy the motherland. [insert airline security joke]

Islamic Authoritarianism, maybe, for the national end (Taliban, etc) - or Fundamentalist Authoritarianism, or Theocratic Totalitarianism.

For Al Qaeda (because Al Qaeda ≠ Taliban)... has anyone busted out "Islamic supremacists" yet? Fundamentalist Wahhabists would work. Or we could just go back to the roots of traditionalist/religious objections to liberal democratic society and call them "conservatives." *rimshot*

But seriously, words mean things.

You can be a fascist without a "fascist" country in that you'd like to live in one even though you don't. Although I also disagree that Bin Laden's a fascist, he could easily be one if he wanted to, it wouldn't matter.
Following this logic, no one could be an anarchist (or even a socialist in most of the world) because they don't live in an "anarchist country".

Of course Bin Laden can't make trains run on time because he's not the president of anywhere, he's a terrorist, and terrorists don't run trains, they blow them. Mussolini also couldn't make trains run on time until he became dicator, and neither did he live in a "fascist country". But he was already a fascist.

yut wrote:[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism]You need corporations, industry, etc. to be a fascist country. You see, Bin Laden can't make the trains run on time, because they're blown up or never existed.

Antero wrote: Banning kites does not make you more or less fascist, unless you claim that a racially-differentiated foe is aided by the employment of kites to destroy the motherland.

But the word 'fascism' does not inherently denote racism, does it?

Fascism is when you have a tight-knit authoritarian regime that is in cahoots with corporatism.

For example, a country that starts a war on false pretenses, employs their leaders' corporate enterprises to facilitate the war, and spies on it's own people could be considered a fascist nation.

On the other hand, some Islamic extemist theocrats who are spread across many nations and really don't seem too interested in helping the corporate entities in their region are definately not fascists.

This is just a way to further misinform the American population and have them believe we are fighting a just cause...

Facism does not denote racism but nationalism is part of it. There's a slight difference there. Kind of like a Venn diagram... There is overlap between both racism and nationalism, but they are not one in the same