Madrid Bombing Terorrist killed by heartbreak....

[Coyote]

If "fascism" basically means the totalitarian, nationalistic state, and "Islam" is being used as a founding basis for the establishment of such state, then the term "Islamofascist" would indeed apply to those who want to impose a Shari'a based regime of "Muslim nationalism". The Taliban, originally, would qualify.

It then becomes a handy tag term to blanket all of the insurgent groups, even though it wouldn't really apply properly.

[Ryan Thunder]

By this clown's egocentric logic, Japanese were Nazis because they wanted the U.S. to lose WW2.

What? How the hell did you get that?

Did you even read what I posted?

[Illuminatus Primus]

If "fascism" basically means the totalitarian, nationalistic state, and "Islam" is being used as a founding basis for the establishment of such state, then the term "Islamofascist" would indeed apply to those who want to impose a Shari'a based regime of "Muslim nationalism". The Taliban, originally, would qualify.

It then becomes a handy tag term to blanket all of the insurgent groups, even though it wouldn't really apply properly.

And what about Austrofascism of Dr. Englebert Dolfuss and the supposedly-fascist states under Generalissimo Francisco Franco and António de Oliveira Salazar? Neither of those were totalitarian in nature. And if totalitarianism = fascism, what is even the point of using the latter term? Face it, totalitarian Islamism would be a much more suitable label, and extending the specific "fascism" to cover it is just twisting a definition to take advantage of its etymological power (ref: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy), and not because its accurate or preferable. In other words, a political smear.

[Illuminatus Primus]

By this clown's egocentric logic, Japanese were Nazis because they wanted the U.S. to lose WW2.

What? How the hell did you get that?

Did you even read what I posted?

Yes, you said that our enemies could be characterized as one because they all sought to defeat America and because they had similar aims. What those aims are you've not established nor have you established how "fascism" accurately describes them.

[Thanas]

Irrelevant.

Nope. If you are, say...12 years old, your continued idiocy is excusable. Right now, you are simply an idiot who has no excuse for being stupid.

More seriously; ok, I think I see what you meant by what you said earlier. I simply misinterpreted you.

Yet you continue to issue blanket statements. If you really misinterpreted me, you would have stopped by now.

Can't, because it isn't. When did I suggest that it was?

Right when you tried to simplify the war on terror into us vs them.

They might not have the same goals, but the pursuit of their goals tends to generally have the same effect; they stick their fingers in the gears and jam things up, while accomplishing nothing worthwhile...

If it weren't for that sort of scum-sucking idiocy the Americans could have come home years ago.

IP already dealt with your idiocy here, so I'll just cover the rest.

Again, how old are you? Also, stop making excuses for the ineptitude of the administration. Any occupier who lets his troops (be they military or contractors) shoot civilians at will, commit atrotcities and not persecutes those involved but gives the occupied the finger instead is going to get shot at.

The blame for the failure of the occupation of Iraq war should first and foremost be laid at the feet of this administration and the idiocy of the american voters who voted for the GOP.

[MKSheppard]

By this clown's egocentric logic, Japanese were Nazis because they wanted the U.S. to lose WW2.

But they were!

[Ryan Thunder]

Right now, you are simply an idiot who has no excuse for being stupid.

No, I misunderstood your post. Yes, it is complicated. I thought you meant that in the sense that not everybody who's out to destroy us is necessarily classifiable as an enemy...

Yes, it was a dumb assumption to make.

More seriously; ok, I think I see what you meant by what you said earlier. I simply misinterpreted you.

Yet you continue to issue blanket statements. If you really misinterpreted me, you would have stopped by now.

Simply because I misinterpreted what you wrote does not mean that I automatically agree with every last bit of it.

Can't, because it isn't. When did I suggest that it was?

Right when you tried to simplify the war on terror into us vs them.

Ok, now you're misinterpreting what I'm saying... "Them" is our enemies, which may be diverse and not necessarily related directly to each other, and may require entirely different approaches to be dealt with. I'm not sure what you thought I meant. I certainly don't think they're all coordinated with each other, which might be what you were referring to.

The blame for the failure of the occupation of Iraq war should first and foremost be laid at the feet of this administration and the idiocy of the american voters who voted for the GOP.

Well, yeah, I agree.

On the other hand, the troops wouldn't have an excuse (however poor) to be shooting civilians if they didn't have an insurgency that dresses in civilian clothes to deal with.

[Thanas]

No, I misunderstood your post. Yes, it is complicated. I thought you meant that in the sense that not everybody who's out to destroy us is necessarily classifiable as an enemy...

Pfft. Please. I am not stupid.

However, why don't you please define what those enemies are? You are constantly using blanket labels like "enemies" "out to destroy us" etc. You do understand that everyone who is involved in the Iraqi insurgency is not necessarily out to destroy the US?

Ok, now you're misinterpreting what I'm saying... "Them" is our enemies, which may be diverse and not necessarily related directly to each other, and may require entirely different approaches to be dealt with. I'm not sure what you thought I meant. I certainly don't think they're all coordinated with each other, which might be what you were referring to.

No you idiot. We were discussing the labeling of everyone in the so called "war on terror" when:

Geez... What other kind of a war is there? How can you separate "Us vs. Them" from violent competition between parties?

When challenged, you wrote:

They might not have the same goals, but the pursuit of their goals tends to generally have the same effect; they stick their fingers in the gears and jam things up, while accomplishing nothing worthwhile...

And even now, you still use blanket labels like "enemies who need to be dealt with". You have learnt nothing and merely replaced islamofascist with "enemy".

Simply because I misinterpreted what you wrote does not mean that I automatically agree with every last bit of it.

Oh yeah, you were misinterpreting me. Right. I write about the incorrect usage of a term and you respond that "us-vs-them" is easy enough to use that term. Are you backpeddling or is your reading comprehension that bad?

On the other hand, the troops wouldn't have an excuse (however poor) to be shooting civilians if they didn't have an insurgency that dresses in civilian clothes to deal with.

Are you saying the shooting of civilians is excusable? Or what the hell does that sentence mean? If someone shoots at US troops, he is no civilian. And the fact that insurgents masquerades as civilians (Newsflash: common practice for guerilllas since the dawn of ages) does not excuse shooting civilians.

[K. A. Pital]

If "fascism" basically means the totalitarian, nationalistic state, and "Islam" is being used as a founding basis for the establishment of such state, then the term "Islamofascist" would indeed apply to those who want to impose a Shari'a based regime of "Muslim nationalism".

Fascism does not mean a "totalitarian, nationalistic state". Fascism per Mussolini violently repudiates several key movements: pacifism, socialism, democracy and liberalism, resulting in it's key characteristics: militarism, corporatism, dictatorship, nationalism and extreme social darwinism.

Muslim insurgents are not in capitalism, therefore, they cannot oppose socialism, they are tribal, therefore, there's no democracy to oppose. Yes, they are militaristic and nationalistic, but their economic views repudiate both corporatism, extreme social darwinism and capitalism in general, since their society is not yet in a capitalist economic mode.

Therefore, some Muslim insurgents are radical nationalists, some are theocrats (religious dictatorship) or theocratic nationalists, but I doubt any of them are fascist.

[Ryan Thunder]

No, I misunderstood your post. Yes, it is complicated. I thought you meant that in the sense that not everybody who's out to destroy us is necessarily classifiable as an enemy...

Pfft. Please. I am not stupid.

I suspected as much. As I said, it was a dumb assumption to make.

However, why don't you please define what those enemies are? You are constantly using blanket labels like "enemies" "out to destroy us" etc. You do understand that everyone who is involved in the Iraqi insurgency is not necessarily out to destroy the US?

I suppose I use the term "enemy" a little more loosely than you do.

So, no, they aren't all necessarily there to destroy the US. Some of them are there to try and get the Americans out so they can go back to "the good old days," when they were in charge and the minority made the laws.

Some of them 'just' want their own state at the expense of everyone else there. Perhaps there are other motivators, but they're still actively attacking American troops, which gives us a fairly straightforward way to classify them at the high level.

After that, we can get into exactly what it is their objectives are.

[Illuminatus Primus]

And how does attacking U.S. troops make them generally fascists? You're proving the joke at the expense of the American Joe Sixpack that since all anti-Americans are communists or fascists, the "enemies" must be fascist because they're not communists.

Your position is tautological. You're saying that they're fascists because they are enemies, and our enemies are our enemies because they are fascist.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I suppose I use the term "enemy" a little more loosely than you do.

So, no, they aren't all necessarily there to destroy the US. Some of them are there to try and get the Americans out so they can go back to "the good old days," when they were in charge and the minority made the laws.

Some of them 'just' want their own state at the expense of everyone else there. Perhaps there are other motivators, but they're still actively attacking American troops, which gives us a fairly straightforward way to classify them at the high level.

After that, we can get into exactly what it is their objectives are.

Ya know, this "minority" making laws, goes both ways at the moment. All this "enemies", 'fascist" tags, that is just for the masses to go chew on and rally to the cause of the people high up there. You are just falling into their little trap.

[Thanas]

I suppose I use the term "enemy" a little more loosely than you do.

You are using it as a blanket label. This is not an intelligent thing to do, and completely useless.

So, no, they aren't all necessarily there to destroy the US. Some of them are there to try and get the Americans out so they can go back to "the good old days," when they were in charge and the minority made the laws.

Some of them 'just' want their own state at the expense of everyone else there. Perhaps there are other motivators, but they're still actively attacking American troops, which gives us a fairly straightforward way to classify them at the high level.

So your position is basically if they shoot at us, we shoot at them? Oh great. Yes, the occupation will run smoothly because of that. Wait, the US tried that, didn't it? It failed. Bummer.

You are still lumping various groups under the label of "enemy". An enemy is someone who is actively trying to hurt you and who needs to be combatted.

After that, we can get into exactly what it is their objectives are.

Declaring people as enemies before finding out about their objectives is stupid since it does not allow for a preemptive measure to take place.

[Ryan Thunder]

I suppose I use the term "enemy" a little more loosely than you do.

You are using it as a blanket label. This is not an intelligent thing to do, and completely useless.

Main Entry:
en·e·my Listen to the pronunciation of enemy
Pronunciation:
\ˈe-nə-mē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural en·e·mies
Etymology:
Middle English enemi, from Anglo-French, from Latin inimicus, from in- 1in- + amicus friend — more at amiable
Date:
13th century

1: one that is antagonistic to another; especially : one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent
2: something harmful or deadly <alcohol was his greatest enemy>
3 a: a military adversary b: a hostile unit or force

Explain to me how any of the groups I've referred to do not fall under that definition.

So, no, they aren't all necessarily there to destroy the US. Some of them are there to try and get the Americans out so they can go back to "the good old days," when they were in charge and the minority made the laws.

Some of them 'just' want their own state at the expense of everyone else there. Perhaps there are other motivators, but they're still actively attacking American troops, which gives us a fairly straightforward way to classify them at the high level.

So your position is basically if they shoot at us, we shoot at them? Oh great. Yes, the occupation will run smoothly because of that. Wait, the US tried that, didn't it? It failed. Bummer.

Well what the fuck would you have them do? Take pictures?

You are still lumping various groups under the label of "enemy". An enemy is someone who is actively trying to hurt you and who needs to be combatted.

And the insurgent factions in Iraq, who attack American troops on a regular basis don't fit that description? If not, then exactly what the fuck does in your neat little world view?

After that, we can get into exactly what it is their objectives are.

Declaring people as enemies before finding out about their objectives is stupid since it does not allow for a preemptive measure to take place.

What kind of bullshit is this? You can see from what they're doing that they're trying to hinder us, bring us down in one way or another. And so they are our enemies.

If their objective is to hinder your country's goals, how are they not your enemy?

And how the hell does recognizing that they're your enemy prevent you from taking some sort of preemptive measure to deal with them before they become a problem?

This isn't a matter of "dur--shoot first ask later, dur."

It's a matter of "Holy fuck, the bastard's are shooting at us! What do we do!?"

[Thanas]

You know what, Ryan? I will break this down for you:

Here is my problem with you: You are trying to label the insurgency as an enemy. I agree that the people who shoot at the soldiers right now are a present danger. However, not all of them have to be. They can be bought, persuaded etc. They'll most likely still hate the US and want to screw with them, but will go along with it for the moment. How do you classify the things happening in Anbar province, where Sunni nationalists switched sides? They still hate the US. Are they the enemy now? See, that's the problem with something as widespread as the insurgency.
Labeling someone an enemy does nothing to promote thinking, and labeling something as diverse as the insurgency as "enemies" right from the bat is pretty stupid. Some are enemies in the purest sense (like Al-Qaida), some are not. Furthermore, calling someone an enemy does nothing to promote political dialogue ("They are our enemies." "Why?" "Because they are shooting at us" "Why?" "Because they try to hinder our goals" "Why?" "Because they are our enemies"). It kinda absolves the administration from making a case other than "they want to hurt us".

You are still employing a massive black/white worldview. Your definiton of an enemy is not merely someone who shoots at you, but also someone who tries to hinder a nation's goals.

What kind of bullshit is this? You can see from what they're doing that they're trying to hinder us, bring us down in one way or another. And so they are our enemies.

If their objective is to hinder your country's goals, how are they not your enemy?

Back when Poland was trying to block the EU constitution, should they have been regarded as an enemy by the rest of the EU because they were trying to hinder the goal of those nations? Trying to hinder someone else's goals does not make someone an enemy. Do you consider Russia an enemy of the US? What about "old europe"? What about China? What about North Korea? What about spying activities from Nato partners or Russia?

[Ryan Thunder]

You know what, Ryan? I will break this down for you:

Here is my problem with you: You are trying to label the insurgency as an enemy. I agree that the people who shoot at the soldiers right now are a present danger. However, not all of them have to be. They can be bought, persuaded etc. They'll most likely still hate the US and want to screw with them, but will go along with it for the moment. How do you classify the things happening in Anbar province, where Sunni nationalists switched sides? They still hate the US. Are they the enemy now?

Well if they changed sides they are (at least temporarily) not our enemies. I question the wisdom of allying with them if they abuse civilians, though...

("They are our enemies." "Why?" "Because they are shooting at us" "Why?" "Because they try to hinder our goals" "Why?" "Because they are our enemies")

It goes a bit differently in my head...

"They're our enemies."
"Why?"
"Depends..."
"On what?"
"On which ones you're talking about."
"Well, what do they want?"
"Who cares? They're shooting at us for Vaul's sakes! If they're dumb enough to think they're actually accomplishing anything with this ridiculous stint, I probably don't want to know, anyways..."

See, that's the problem with something as widespread as the insurgency.
Labeling someone an enemy does nothing to promote thinking, and labeling something as diverse as the insurgency as "enemies" right from the bat is pretty stupid. Some are enemies in the purest sense (like Al-Qaida), some are not. Furthermore, calling someone an enemy does nothing to promote political dialogue<snip>. It kinda absolves the administration from making a case other than "they want to hurt us".

You are still employing a massive black/white worldview. Your definiton of an enemy is not merely someone who shoots at you, but also someone who tries to hinder a nation's goals.

It would actually depend on the severity of the consequences of not achieving that goal. For example, China puts out an utterly terrifying amount of pollution every year; so much so that the increase in overall pollution levels still get worse in spite of our efforts to curb them. If we don't fix that within oh, 10 years I think it was, we're basically fucked. Rather; I'm basically fucked, and so are my children, and their children, etc. So, I would classify China as an enemy that needs to be persuaded to get their head out of their ass.

Not all enemies need to be destroyed, of course. As I said, I suspect I merely use the term a bit more loosely than you, because I'm finding that I agree with you regarding how to deal with them.

Of course I hardly ever discuss these things with people; as such, I read what you say differently than you might mean, and vice versa, hence the confusion.

[Sarevok]

Ryan i heard of this wonderful book called the dictionary. It has amazing words such as rivals, opponents,obstacles etc which describe the world better than 'enemies of the people and senate of america'.

[Ryan Thunder]

Ryan i heard of this wonderful book called the dictionary. It has amazing words such as rivals, opponents,obstacles etc which describe the world better than 'enemies of the people and senate of america'.

Exactly what part of "one that is antagonistic to another; especially : one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent" do you not understand, moron?

[Thanas]

Ryan i heard of this wonderful book called the dictionary. It has amazing words such as rivals, opponents,obstacles etc which describe the world better than 'enemies of the people and senate of america'.

Exactly what part of "one that is antagonistic to another; especially : one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent" do you not understand, moron?

You yourself are the moron. I will not reply to your long-winded other posts, since you have hit the nail on the head. Confound has a much more negative connection with injure and overthrow. In fact, all those things describe intent. China, who you regard as an enemy, can only be accused of gross negligience, especially considering the recent political dialogue in China. Also, while some states seek to widen their influence, this does not make them enemies. It makes them rivals or obstacles, since the primary goal is to widen the own influence and hurting the US is secondary at best.

An enemy must have the direct intent to harm you. You have failed to proof your point in regards to that.

[Thanas]

Ghetto edit: See what I mean with having a black/white view of the world?

[Ryan Thunder]

Ghetto edit: See what I mean with having a black/white view of the world?

Yes. Actually, I do...

[Thanas]

Then I hope you'll be a little more careful with your terminology in the future.

Still, you do not seem like a lost cause, so I think you might have a future on this board. Good luck to future debates.