• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The myth of Islamo-facism

Zeuxidamus

New member
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Location
TEXAS
I would like to dispell the myth of an islamo-fascist culture.

The melding of the islam and fascism is an invention of Fox news and seems to be making inroads into popular culture. I have a problem with this as it is extremely misleading.

Ok we will start with the Oxford dictionary definition of fascism,"extreme totalitarian right-wing nationalist movement or philosophy"

And this is what Benito Mussilini said of fascism,"Fascism is the marriage of right wing government with corporate interests."

Now with those two fascism definitions we are forced to see the islamic movement for what it is, an Islamic- fundamentalist movement, which Oxford define fundamentalism as,"strict adhereance to traditional religious beliefs"

We are the only fascist movement right now, having a full fledged right wing government that is melded with corporate interests. I would like to hear an inteligent argument that we in the U.S. aren't fascist, an Islam is but I don't think that is possible.

One more thing is that Nazi's were not fascist either but rather National-socialist.

This countries educational system is a joke and that is why propoganda like the "islamo-fascist" term, can gain creedence over time.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,999
Reaction score
6,103
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Welcome to Debate Politics!

Interesting... Oxford online does indeed define it as that.. here are two others

Dictionary.com defines fascism as:

1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Merriam-Webster definition:

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

It would seem that Oxford dictionary has an issue with distinguishing the difference between "Fascism" and "fascism". Because of that, I can understand your confusion.

By the definitions stated above for "fascism" (not capitolized which was a govenment movement in Italy) the US does not fall into the fascism category(we have no dictator), but some Islamic countries are not excluded. That is not to say that ALL islamic countries are "islamo-fascist".

Indeed, Iraq no longer fits the category.
 

Zeuxidamus

New member
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Location
TEXAS
Excuse me sir I am not confused, but rather you seem to be.

Dictionary.com is not a recognized source by anyone, so we will throw that definition out immediately. Your second example is legitimate, but your statement that we do not qualify under that definition is shakey at best. And thirdly, there is no difference between fascism and Fascism except that one form is capitalized, that doesn't change the definition any more than if I spelled it FASCISM.

Iraq was never a fascist state but merely a dictatorship that we encouraged until it became inconvenient to us.

We are a fascist state until someone redefines some of the accepted definition for govermental policies. Our system just becomes bogged down in the 1 1/2 party system. Personally I like the term corpocracy for our form of government. Run by corporations, for corporations.

But thats another educational lesson in and of itself isn't it.

Let me ask you this though sir. How can you as a Republican condone the big government attitude and lack of fiscal responsibility from our current regime? At least I halfway respected the republican party when they supposedly supported these ideas, but now I just see them as the same as democrats but with better public relations people.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,999
Reaction score
6,103
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Zeuxidamus said:
Excuse me sir I am not confused, but rather you seem to be.

Let me ask you this though sir. How can you as a Republican condone the big government attitude and lack of fiscal responsibility from our current regime? At least I halfway respected the republican party when they supposedly supported these ideas, but now I just see them as the same as democrats but with better public relations people.
I guess I am confused. All three definitions require a dictator. The "right-wing" they are refering to exisited in Italy - not the US today.

Just because I am a Republican doesn't mean that I sign off on everything Bush or congress does. I have big issues with quite a bit of his ideas and some of the crap he has signed.

As far as the deficit, everytime we have had one, our economy blossums. Look at Reagan's trickle down plan. It worked, but many dems will not acknowledge it. Is it not another way to spread the wealth to Asian countries that 'loan' us money? Socialists should love the idea.

Don't call me sir, I work for a living. ;)
 

Zeuxidamus

New member
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Location
TEXAS
Sir is meant as a sign of respect.

Trickle-down economics is considered a failure in all but the most devoutly republican circles.

And the dictator question is up for debate also, true Bush is not the definition of a dictator but is getting close. And need I remind you that two of the definition laked the dictator criteria. The definition I like best is the one put forth by Mussolini , seeing as he knows the most about the ups and downs of fascism. Anyway you made a convincing argument for the U.S. not being fascist though not a strong one.

Funny how you support Bush but don't agree with everything he does. When everything he does goes directly against what republicans stand for, smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and states rights.
Seems to me that today's republicans are yesterdays democrats with a bible.

Sorry I can't top that last sentence, that's a pretty good one if I do say so myself.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Zeuxidamus said:
Ok we will start with the Oxford dictionary definition of fascism,"extreme totalitarian right-wing nationalist movement or philosophy"
Umm, Zeuxidamus, I noticed that you missed a couple words and added a couple when citing Oxford.
fascism
/fashiz’m/


• noun 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

In Walter Lacquer's "The Essence of Fascism", he defines fascism to be:
1) Nationalistic
2) A leader, whom has unlimited power.
3) The Ideology is Faith, in the sense that it is almost dogmatic religion.
4) The use of Violence.
5) Anti-Democratic and Anti-Communist.
6) Expansionist
7) The usage of Propaganda
8 ) Militeristic
9) Anti-Liberalism
10) Extreme Right Wing


So now we've got definitions out of the way. We can go on to your arguments, to which there are many.

1) You are claiming that the United States has a full-fledged fascist movement.
2) You are claiming (that people are saying) that governments under Islam are not working under fascism.

To answer number one: No, the United States does not have a full-fledged fascist movement. Its citizens vote for their representatives and in some cases vote for their laws (propositions etc). They vote, in an indirect way, for their president as well. Since Bush cannot rule in a authoritarian (dictatorial) manner nor does he have unlimited power, he cannot be a fascist by definition.

To answer number two: I wouldn't claim that all governments under Islam are working under fascism. We can look towards Afghanistan and Iraq as immediate examples that that claim would be a fallacy. A country like Libya, with its alleged Jamahiriya, does in fact have a military dictatorship under Qaddafy and its laws based on Islam (and to a lesser extent, italian law). In other words, to say Islamic form of government is fascist would be an incorrect blanket statement.

I want to address a couple of your other statements directly as well:
Zeuxidamus said:
And the dictator question is up for debate also, true Bush is not the definition of a dictator but is getting close.
I'm not sure how you're defining "close". He has not expressed any ideas that he is going to remain in power after his term is up (nor has he expressed removing term limits either).

Zeuxidamus said:
Funny how you support Bush but don't agree with everything he does.
Bush has even had dissent in his own appointees (Powell is a quick throw-out name for that). Disagreement when warranted is a sign of an independent mind and should be applauded and not disparaged.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Nice post Shaumort, thank you. I ditto that. :D
 

averagejoe

New member
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
lets not debate defanitions, i tried that once with my lib. brother over liberal vs. conservative, it is futile, and frankly annoying. annoying being the euphamism for geeky, just stick to the good points
1)Saddam Hussein was a dictator and a fascist, he looked constantly for a semi-deacent reason to kill Kurds because he personally believed they were less than respectable Iraqis.
2)we have a voting system, that for the most part works, we are not a fascist goverment, but could become one if the Terry Schiavo case is more popularized by the leftys, now that was fascism. Whats next, killing retarded person!, sorry, off in a tangent. But, don't for a minute think that the right-wing had anything to do with that horrible decision.
 

Arch Enemy

Familiaist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
7,470
Reaction score
2,085
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Average Joe,

Welcome to the forums.

I don't want this to become another Terry thread because what happened will always be debated over and the main facts is that she's dead.. she wouldn't have been able to heal too much of her brain was damaged.

You maybe right with the idea that Saddam is a fascist.. though It's hard for me to believe that as truth, but at this point in time I cannot argue with you, I lack valid facts to support my response.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Averagejoe :2wave:
Have Fun and Happy Posting !​
 

averagejoe

New member
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
The idea of it was not to bring up the Terry Schiavo issue again, but to show the similarity between the argument at hand, and fascism as a whole. What happened with her was and is fascism, the thread at hand was and is about fascism, hence the posting. Now, in regards to islamic fascism, I do not believe they are fascist excactly, just idiots with ideology. There is nothing worse than a person whom is willing to kill for and idea, or differance of opinion. I also believe there is no place in the civilized world for such persons.
 

Arch Enemy

Familiaist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
7,470
Reaction score
2,085
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
averagejoe said:
. What happened with her was and is fascism.
Could you explain on this.. I don't see how "pulling the plug" on a dying woman, kept alive by mechanical means, is considered "fascism" a type of government.
 

averagejoe

New member
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
are you that blinded by liberal propaghanda that you cannot see the similarity? hitler believed in the disposal of the infirm and non-arien alike. and to set you straight, she was not on any kind of resperator, she was simply being fed by other than ordinary means. just because she was a burden, does that means she should be starved to death.THAT IS FASCISM!"not desirable", WAKE UP YOU INSENSITIVE MORON!
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,999
Reaction score
6,103
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
averagejoe said:
are you that blinded by liberal propaghanda that you cannot see the similarity? hitler believed in the disposal of the infirm and non-arien alike. and to set you straight, she was not on any kind of resperator, she was simply being fed by other than ordinary means. just because she was a burden, does that means she should be starved to death.THAT IS FASCISM!"not desirable", WAKE UP YOU INSENSITIVE MORON!
Before we start calling anyone names... lets stop and think for a moment.

What if Terri did not want to live this way and they pulled the tube. Would that be fascism?

Welcome to Debate Politics!
 

averagejoe

New member
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
i call it like i see it, but if it comes down to what ifs, id rather not leave my life in the hands of a spouse who already has a girlfriend and kids before i'm even dead! come on, he hid it under the guise of quality of life. let me ask you a question, if you had a child born with a birth defect that would limit his "quality of life", would you just starve the kid to death? because that is basically what he did, and if it wasn't a slow and painful death, then why did it for 1).13 days to die,2).put her on morphine? these people are sick,(speaking of the doctors) that just stood by and let her slowly die. :confused:
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,999
Reaction score
6,103
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
averagejoe said:
i call it like i see it, but if it comes down to what ifs, id rather not leave my life in the hands of a spouse who already has a girlfriend and kids before i'm even dead! come on, he hid it under the guise of quality of life. let me ask you a question, if you had a child born with a birth defect that would limit his "quality of life", would you just starve the kid to death? because that is basically what he did, and if it wasn't a slow and painful death, then why did it for 1).13 days to die,2).put her on morphine? these people are sick,(speaking of the doctors) that just stood by and let her slowly die. :confused:
1. All patients that are in that state are put on morphine. Regardless if she could feel pain, the body will react.
2. I would not put my child to death because of 'quality of life'. A child does not have the capacity to make a choice before getting into that situation. I believe Micheal and her two best friends when they said that Terri told them that she would not want to live in this type of situtation.
3. It took 13 days because she was excerting no energy for years. This is not uncommon.
4. This was a complete smear campaign by the parents of Terri. Pure and simple greed from them. It worked well. Did you know that Michael was holding her head when she died? Yep, he sure was a sorry no caring bastard.
5. If I had been in this situation, I would hope that it would not take 15 years for my wife to have complete closure.

Back on topic - how is this Fascism?
 

averagejoe

New member
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
first off, it was 10 years, and second, why are you dragging the parents name through the mud? i've heard of so many stories about husbands murdering wives, not so much on parents, and siblings up and deciding to kill there daughter/sister.the guy was motivated, buy what, I don't know. My question to him would be,"why wouldn't you let her parents sit at her side aswell at her moment of death?". lets be honest here, this is not about your moral beliefs, its about trying to get everyone you blab on to to agree with what your saying, typical liberal, always got to have some kind of rivalry,huh?
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,999
Reaction score
6,103
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
averagejoe said:
lets be honest here, this is not about your moral beliefs, its about trying to get everyone you blab on to to agree with what your saying, typical liberal, always got to have some kind of rivalry,huh?
I am NOT a liberal. Like you, I call it as I see it. This is NOT a liberal/conservative issue. It is sickening that some folks actually think that. Of course I am trying to get people to agree with what I post. Are you not as well? It's futile in a debate forum to just type words without hopeing for an agreement.

When I married my wife, my parents no longer have any choices over me. As said in another post - I would hope that my wife would NOT listen to them.

Why are you dragging Michael through the mudd? Equally a valid question. You believe he murdered her. I believe he carried out her wishes. I have called no one a fascist or moron to present my case, so I am unsure if this is a rivalry on my part.
 

hawk2

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Location
NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Zeuxidamus said:
I would like to dispell the myth of an islamo-fascist culture.

The melding of the islam and fascism is an invention of Fox news and seems to be making inroads into popular culture. I have a problem with this as it is extremely misleading.

Ok we will start with the Oxford dictionary definition of fascism,"extreme totalitarian right-wing nationalist movement or philosophy"

And this is what Benito Mussilini said of fascism,"Fascism is the marriage of right wing government with corporate interests."

Now with those two fascism definitions we are forced to see the islamic movement for what it is, an Islamic- fundamentalist movement, which Oxford define fundamentalism as,"strict adhereance to traditional religious beliefs"

We are the only fascist movement right now, having a full fledged right wing government that is melded with corporate interests. I would like to hear an inteligent argument that we in the U.S. aren't fascist, an Islam is but I don't think that is possible.

One more thing is that Nazi's were not fascist either but rather National-socialist.

This countries educational system is a joke and that is why propoganda like the "islamo-fascist" term, can gain creedence over time.

When I first read this opening statement, I welcomed it because I had accepted it as the best (so far) term to describe the group of Islamic fanatics who want to take the world back to the 7th century under Sharia law.

Then after reading Zeuxidamus's response to Vauge's excellent rebutall, I realized it was only a different entree to the old Bush Bashing, hate America theme of the left.

Very disappointing.......I should have realized it immediately when Zeuxi.... alleged that the term was coined by Fox news. It was an obvious slam at a right wing news agency (self described as biased to the right).

This is a question for Zeuxidamus: Since you immediately got side-tracked by your zeal to bash Bush and America, do you have a problem with the fanatics of Islam who you described as Islamo-fascist.......or do you apologise for them?
 
Last edited:

new coup for you

Upper West Side Jacobin
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
10,643
Reaction score
2,283
Location
Philly, "The City that shoves you back!"
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
the Taliban was legitimately totalitarian, using all the mechanisms of that form of government.

Iraq was just a nationalist dictatorship.

most people mean Islamo-totalitarianism when they say Islamo-fascism

fascism and totalitarianism are so associated that they're often incorrectly used interchangeably
 

hawk2

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Location
NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
new coup for you said:
the Taliban was legitimately totalitarian, using all the mechanisms of that form of government.

Iraq was just a nationalist dictatorship.

most people mean Islamo-totalitarianism when they say Islamo-fascism

fascism and totalitarianism are so associated that they're often incorrectly used interchangeably
Ok....let's say I accept that for the moment. What would you call my perception of the objective of the Islamic extremists: To obliterate all other forms of gov't and install a new world order of the Caliphate with a new Caliph and with Sharia law as the only law.
 

new coup for you

Upper West Side Jacobin
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
10,643
Reaction score
2,283
Location
Philly, "The City that shoves you back!"
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
that'd just be a theocracy, not necessarily a totalitarianism.

in totalitarianism the state is reality. rebelling would be unfathomable, it'd be like rebelling against the sky.
 

hawk2

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Location
NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
new coup for you said:
that'd just be a theocracy, not necessarily a totalitarianism.

in totalitarianism the state is reality. rebelling would be unfathomable, it'd be like rebelling against the sky.
Ah...but what about those of us who have not yet been de-capitated and who intend to rebel against what we perceive to be totalitarianism.
 

JOHNYJ

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Islam as generaly defined is incompatible with democracy . The only democratic Islamic state is turkey . The founder of Turkey was suspicious of all religion including Islam . He tried to make turkey as secular as possible. There is a raising tide of Islamic activism in Turkey that might destroy its democracy .
Islamo-facism is no myth.
 
Top Bottom