Disagree With Me, and You're Appeasing Fascism

Clear it up for you?
Nope ......
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control


and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East.

So who tends towards or strong autocrats or dictators ? Osama , Rummy or both .
Pehaps Rummy should have said " appease fascists , thats my job"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

As for point 2, you're clearly confusing means with goals. Their goal is now and has been:
Quote:

Quote:

---

The principal stated aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East. Bin Laden has also said that he wishes to unite all Muslims and establish, by force if necessary, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs.

---

---

Oh, I know perfectly well that the Jihadis think they want an Islamic dictatorship, but if that extremely unlikely event were to pass, they'd be in for a surprise. They've been perfecting a distributed system of violence accountable to no-one. What do you think would happen if, by using such means, they actually got their Kingdom of God? What would happen the first time the Caliph did something not-quite-holy enough for them?

Their claims are dictatorial, but their methods are distributed. If they ever come to any sort of power, that's going to create a methodological and cognitive dissonance. The only reasons they were able to exist with the Taliban were (a) money, (b) bin Laden's constant kissing-up to the Taliban leadership, and (c) an understanding that none of the dictatorship's rules applied to the "arabs" (as al Qaeda were known).

I'm not digging in my heels or being deliberately dense -- I truly don't think "fascist" is a helpful term in this conflict. We need to see them for what they are, not what we'd like them to be. The various jihadi groups have differences, and we can use those differences to our advantage. To say and pretend they're a unified group is to do ourselves a disservice.

What benefit do you see to going along with the fascist label? Do you feel it's helpful? If so, why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Oh, I know perfectly well that the Jihadis think they want an Islamic dictatorship, but if that extremely unlikely event were to pass, they'd be in for a surprise. They've been perfecting a distributed system of violence accountable to no-one. What do you think would happen if, by using such means, they actually got their Kingdom of God? What would happen the first time the Caliph did something not-quite-holy enough for them?

Their claims are dictatorial, but their methods are distributed. If they ever come to any sort of power, that's going to create a methodological and cognitive dissonance. The only reasons they were able to exist with the Taliban were (a) money, (b) bin Laden's constant kissing-up to the Taliban leadership, and (c) an understanding that none of the dictatorship's rules applied to the "arabs" (as al Qaeda were known).

---

To your first point- first, the leaders are the ones who decide what is "holy" or not- its a very convenient position for them. Second, Saddam Hussein was a textbook example of how oppressive Arab dictatorships can deal with dissent in ways that we in the West can barely imagine. Jail protestors and their families- rape their mothers and sisters. If someone opposes them with force, you torture and kill them and then proceed to kill every man, woman, and child from the town where he came from. It's barbaric- but effective.

To your second point, if someone is a dedicated communist yet lives and works in the US does that make them a capitalist? :wink:

Is it a productive term? As a slogan- yes I suppose it's ok. Islamo-facism is a good catch-all term to describe the goals of terrorists. It also implies fanaticism and reminds people that they cant be bargained with because of their ultimate goals. I'm sure you could parse it down to more specific and precise terms- but that wouldnt make for very good stump speeches.

Xiahou - Lemur:

Fascinating debate guys, thank you. I'm particularly interested in the emotional nuances evoked by the choice of words and terms used in politics, so it's compelling to see the arguments from both sides.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Saddam Hussein was a textbook example of how oppressive Arab dictatorships can deal with dissent in ways that we in the West can barely imagine. Jail protestors and their families- rape their mothers and sisters. If someone opposes them with force, you torture and kill them and then proceed to kill every man, woman, and child from the town where he came from.

---

Um, so you're lumping an atheist totalitarian like Saddam with the holy warriors of al Qaeda? And equating them? I think you're illustrating my position very well -- it does the West no favors to lump disparate groups together for political convenience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

To your second point, if someone is a dedicated communist yet lives and works in the US does that make them a capitalist?

---

I think actions and methods are more important than words. If you spout off about communism, but you're working your butt off in a capitalistic system, then your claims of Socialist Unity are clearly hot air. In much the same vein, there are a lot of people who claim to be small government conservatives who behave rather differently when they're in power. I'll take them at their actions, not their words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Is it a productive term? As a slogan- yes I suppose it's ok. Islamo-facism is a good catch-all term to describe the goals of terrorists. It also implies fanaticism and reminds people that they cant be bargained with because of their ultimate goals. I'm sure you could parse it down to more specific and precise terms- but that wouldnt make for very good stump speeches.

---

It seems that you're saying that the point of the "fascism" label is entirely political. And more, that it's for domestic U.S. politics, not the broader propoganda war.

That's depressing. Stump speeches. Yay. So glad that our conflict could provide some talking points. I guess it's going to be all-partisan-politics all the time until November.

Update on the use of "fascism" in the admin's speeches:

In a controversial move within the administration, Hughes and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice seem to have persuaded Bush — temporarily, at least — to drop the label “Islamic fascism” from his speeches; diplomats say that Muslims hear it as an attack on their religion, thereby validating the extremists’ false charge that the United States is at war with Islam.