Islamo-fascism | OlyBlog

Navigation

User login

Online users

emmettoconnell
Judith
The Original Yoda
jKonovsky
oldtimeydave

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

GRuB
ktcoxster
making a differ...
johnmac
circular_ruins

Islamo-fascism

Submitted by Sarah on Sun, 08/27/2006 - 8:02pm.

Wikipedia has a collection of information and opinion on this term: Islamofascism and Islamic fascism, related links to explore also.

I've thought up several things to write about this term but every idea I come up with I can also argue against.

Sarah's blog
Login or register to post comments

One more definition

Submitted by OlyCop on Mon, 08/28/2006 - 4:23am.

Before we begin to discuss, lets be sure to look at the term "fascism" by its self from the same source.

I don't know how to make it look all nice and pretty, so here it is

Fascism

"The strongest reason to retain the right to keep and bear arms is to protect against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson.

[You've been visited by the Link Fairy]

I agree that the accuracy of

Submitted by Rick on Mon, 08/28/2006 - 6:09am.

I agree that the accuracy of the term "islamofascist" stands or falls on the meaning of "fascist."

Here's a snip from the wiki on "fascism":

Fascism is associated by many scholars with one or more of the following characteristics: a very high degree of nationalism, economic corporatism, a powerful, dictatorial leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it.

I see no element of nationalism or the role of a dictatorial leader in anything that I've seen labeled as "islamofascist" so far. If anything, terrorists are a loosely organized set of individuals who have a common mission (opposing imperialism from the west), who are pan-nationalists. I agree that many of the regimes in the middle east (Iran, for example) are authoritarian, fundamentalist, and anti-democratic. But that doesn't make them fascist.

Again, it seem to me that the term is employed to justify de-humanization of muslims and American hegemony rather than as an accurate analysis of the situation.

I wouldn't characterize the

Submitted by OlyCop on Mon, 08/28/2006 - 3:26pm.

I wouldn't characterize the "terrorists" as loosely organized. I find they are very well organized, funded and trained. And their mission has nothing to do with imperialism, (which is a fallacy in my opinion when applied to this country) but more theocracy at a whole another level of oppression than what the progressives contend the Christian right is trying to do here in the US.

Their nationalism is to the Nation of Islam, and their theocratic beliefs. And the leaders of the different radical Islamic groups are very dictatorial. And do you think that if they came to power like they want, it would be a free society, or do you think it would be just a tad dictatorial? LOL

I don't see it as de-humanization of Muslims at large, but may further the de-humanization of these radical groups. Although with their total lack of humanitarian beliefs, it likely adds little to what they have done to themselves in the eyes of the world.

I don't want to move away from the current discussion too much, but I'm wondering if Italy, Germany, or Japan to name a few, find being a victim of American hegemony, not that I believe the US is spreading hegemony, as a bad thing when compared to where they might be otherwise. (Hows that for a run-on sentence?? LOL!)

"The strongest reason to retain the right to keep and bear arms is to protect against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson.

Loaded

Submitted by Sarah on Mon, 08/28/2006 - 5:40pm.

Yet none of the groups and individuals painted as "Islamo-fascists" label themselves as fascists. And although I am not up on the details, from what I read, calling them fascists is historically inaccurate.

Now, I myself can shoot down my first point, after all, some people who murder others don't call themselves murderers, but they still are. Yet in this case I believe it needs to be kept in mind.

The term if nothing else is emotionally loaded and slanted. If it isn't, then why not "Christo-fascists"? Why is it okay to dragnet in one entire religious faith but not another? I'm not being flippant, this is an honest question. I myself don't think either term is correct.

I suspect that...

Submitted by Rick on Mon, 08/28/2006 - 5:44pm.

...there is a lot of overlap in our beliefs about the terrorists and some of what we're getting caught up on is terminology. However, there are a few points that I differ on:

For example, by "loosely organized" I don't mean untrained or unorganized, but rather they are a distributed network of individuals who are not necessarily ruled by a central authority. They may not even communicate with each other. (Sorry for the confusion over the language.) As such, they are very far from fascism, which has as its hallmark, the complete control over every facet of an individual's existence, leaving no room for individual thought. This is core to the myth about the terrorists: their motivation doesn't spring from a single charismatic leader, but rather from a shared hatred of US policy.

Also, there is no reason to believe that "they hate us for our freedoms." That is complete baloney. They hate us for our policies. Read the history. The actions of the terrorists are horrible and the absolutely wrong way to achieve political ends, but we can't sit around and wonder "why are they doing this." The path of destruction that the west has left in these countries is clear. It is all about hegemony.

Pretending that terrorism is a war to bring Islam to the infidels is pretty ironic, given that we've been dominating their contries for hundreds of years. Again, they are resisting American power.

Most important point: The way to deal with terrorists is for us to align with moderate muslims to isolate the terrorists. This is the only policy that will ever work. What we've done up until now is the opposite. Through war and policy, we've caused the moderates to have common cause with the terrorists, in just exactly the same what that Israel did recently in Lebanon. Even the christians in Lebanon now favor Hezbollah because of a common enemy. Not a smart move.

Katha Pollit "Islamofascism" Article

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Mon, 08/28/2006 - 6:21am.

Here's a link: "Wrong War, Wrong Word"

It's a good article.

Bush's crusade is looking more and more miserable by the day.

Good article

Submitted by Sarah on Mon, 08/28/2006 - 10:40am.

Good article, thanks.

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: