Dealing with some of those terms: Islamofascism

[_JS]

since the posts extensively articulating the accuracy of the term has been made

Where?

In this article for example I've seen touchy-feely attributes that fascists lie or take advantage of those who are recently fallen but now ascendant...

That isn't evidence. I've yet to see a post that really shows a comparison between the political philosophy of Fascism and the Islamists. That is what I'd like to see and I would be impressed. This past article even used the Imperial Japanese as evidence and no scholar considers them to be a fascist state.

Islamist was at least a somewhat vetted term by French scholars in the 1970's. Where's the academics behind this term Sirs? Plane? This touchy-feely thing about fascists lying and Imperial Japan wasn't nice to us is not going to cut it.

I don't mean to sound harsh Sirs, but there's no scholarship here. Plane provided some, but we haven't settled much of the problems with even labelling them as Ur-fascists, certainly no moreso than the right wing here in the United States.

[sirs]

No one's claiming that Islamo fascists have a specific critieria they must adhere to.  As Plane & myself have plainly demonstrated, militant islam has a fascist-like foundation in both actions & rhetoric.  If you want to demean such as "touchy feely", well, you have a right to that opinion.  Is it Hitler-Nazi II?, No.  It's Militant Islam I

[_JS]

As Plane & myself have plainly demonstrated, militant islam has a fascist-like foundation in both actions & rhetoric.

Plane specifically stated that the militant Islam philosophy was not sprung from fascism. That doesn't sound like a fascist foundation to me at all.

So you agree that there is no scholarly reasoning for claiming that Islamists are Fascists?

[sirs]

Plane specifically stated that the militant Islam philosophy was not sprung from fascism. That doesn't sound like a fascist foundation to me at all.

I think we're getting semantically confused.  Militant Islam has a foundation of Fascism.  That doesn't however mean that it "sprung from facsism".  A subtle but distinct difference

So you agree that there is no scholarly reasoning for claiming that Islamists are Fascists?

No.

[Plane]

The Tasmanian Wolf was not actually a wolf , or even a canid but in appearance and habit he was similar enough to make the comparison apt.

The Tasmanian Wolf had a diffrent number of teeth , even some organs absent in the true wolf if there were any common ancestor it would have to be an ancient creature from before the development of the Mammalian characteristics common to the wolf and the mouse.


So the wolf is actually a closer relation to the rabbit than to the Tasmanian "wolf" yet the name, I would argue, is still apt.

The Tasmanian Wolf may be from an older stock and got no design tips from Europe , but it developed in convergent evolution to an similar size and shape , and a similar habit.

Not precisely the same , but close enough that it is more apt to call the creature "wolf " rather than the less apt tho more precise "carnivorous wombat".


Our main familiarity with Fascists was their aggression , their ability to harm , grow , metastasize and intimidate , the fine details of their philosophy are much less well known.


Not really many of us know a Sufi from a Shia much less do we have familiarity with the philosophy , politics and habits that differentiate the sects of Islam even than we do what differences there are between the political entity's of Europe, but when presented with a rapidly growing , furious , irrational , self righteous , ruthless , vicious , violent and widespread threat, we can be excused at ignoring trivial details and focusing on the commonality that makes the picture we are presented by Islamofascism seem so familiar and the opprobrious moniker seem so apt.

[_JS]

Not really many of us know a Sufi from a Shia much less do we have familiarity with the philosophy , politics and habits that differentiate the sects of Islam

Well said Plane. I think that is a huge problem. We shouldn't even be at the stage where we are comparing this to World War II and the Fascist political philosophy when most people have no understanding of the people, cultures, and religion involved in the first place. That is what shows through in these articles. As an example, look at the usage of "sharia law" and the negative connotation Americans and especially those on the right give it. Most have no clue at all what it means.

You use words like "aggression" and "violence" while the National Review uses "lying." That isn't fascism. That could be a myriad of many beliefs, or just the most base of the human condition - but it doesn't make it fascism, which was a political philosophy. I wonder if the right-wing is afraid of a right-wing political philosophy?

[Plane]

Not really many of us know a Sufi from a Shia much less do we have familiarity with the philosophy , politics and habits that differentiate the sects of Islam

Well said Plane. I think that is a huge problem. We shouldn't even be at the stage where we are comparing this to World War II and the Fascist political philosophy when most people have no understanding of the people, cultures, and religion involved in the first place. That is what shows through in these articles. As an example, look at the usage of "sharia law" and the negative connotation Americans and especially those on the right give it. Most have no clue at all what it means.

Was a wide spread public understanding of Facism and Communism and Imperialism necessacery to the proper conduct of WWII?  It may be important that advisors to the president have an indepth understanding of Islam and the politics of the reagion , it may be very desireable for the president himself to understand these things prettyt well. But do we all need to know the details? If someone is shooting at us shooting back mostly requires that we have a good sight picture.

I recall a few years ago that the Prospective President Bush was asked by an ambush reporter if he knew the name of the leader of Packistan , well he didn't and the discussion went round and round about whether this was trivial or not. I seem to have been on the wrong side in that argument in retrospect , but how was I to know the impending importance of Musheriff and Packistan?   

You use words like "aggression" and "violence" while the National Review uses "lying." That isn't fascism. That could be a myriad of many beliefs, or just the most base of the human condition - but it doesn't make it fascism, which was a political philosophy. I wonder if the right-wing is afraid of a right-wing political philosophy?

Fascism is a left wing political philosophy , want to start another thread for that?

I am not wedded to the notion that Radical violent Islamists must be tied to fascism , to me it is enough that they be tightly tied to their own violence , but their potential for repeating for us our WWII experience ought not be ignored. The corporatism , the socialism , the rediculous fondness for ceremony etc were not important objections to Fascism , the most important objection to Fascism was its being a threat , a threat of violence and repression.

If Islamofascists are a threat of violence and repression then this is an important simularity and unimportant dissimularitys can be discounted.