[karajorma]

For ****s sake trashman, stop double posting!

I think you are totally misunderstanding what the word means, the 'islamo' part is a descriptor, the main point is the 'fascist' part. you could talk about christofascists or germanofascist, you are just talking about a particular group of people who want to force other people to do as they want. the prefix just differentiates them from the other fascists who would want them dead. it isn't saying a whole group of people are fascist, its saying a particular group of fascists are of a particular flavor.

Yes but the problem is that it's a rather crappy term. Kazan had a similar problem using christofascist for exactly the same reason.


However my problem isn't the term or even the fact that people think we should try to stop the crap that goes on in Iran (cause we should). My problem is that this is only bubbling to the surface as a result of attempts to make Iran look like the bad guy so that the US can justify it's foreign policy towards the country.

[Bobboau]

I was simply refuting what I perceived as someone dismissing the term as racist. if you want to call it a propaganda tool, well the best lies are half truths.

[karajorma]

I agree it's not racist. But quite frankly what is the point of having a term that drags every single debate it is used in off topic?

[Bobboau]

well if it is an issue then it should be addressed, just because every time someone wants to teach evolution a swarm of people bring up a ton of unrelated **** from communism to the big bang, does not mean evolution should not be taught.

[karajorma]

Agreed. But the term itself is basically Godwining any discussion it is used in. So why use it? Fundamentalist gets the point across just as well.

[Nuclear1]

How come no one is having a go at other countries in the world which are equally brutal. For that matter, how come no one is mentioning Saudi Arabia?

As soon as the US isn't dependent on Saudi Arabia's oil, then I'm almost certain that our policy towards them would change. 

And what about a boot up the US's butt over rendition? Gitmo? and a variety of other things that they have also done wrong?

That's why we have a Supreme Court, elections, and the right to assemble and protest.  Wow, it's almost as if the US can correct itself, but nobody else in the world cares to actually notice these changes but would rather throw the same old tired **** around all day.  But hey, whatever works. 

Yeah, but constantly pointing your finger and shouting "You! You're wrong! You shouldn't do that!" doesn't really help. What the people that run this site should be doing is everything they bloody well can to erase the death penalty and soforth to make the US a better place. Then, they'll have a much better leg to stand on when they decry these assholes.

Their whole point isn't to abolish the death penalty; most conservatives don't have a problem with it.  It's the brutality and blatant miscarriages of justice under Sharia law in the Middle East that shocks most conservative Christian Americans and drives them to hate Islam like they do. 

When DNA evidence screws up and leads to a wrongful execution, most people in the US just accept it and label it under "it's new technology, **** happens" rather than getting genuinely furious about it.  It's not as if the Iranian police force or judicial system made a small, subtle error that had massive ramifications on that girl's life, but they entirely made up the charges and executed a minor brutally for religious charges. That makes all the difference in the heads of most Americans.

[karajorma]

How come no one is having a go at other countries in the world which are equally brutal. For that matter, how come no one is mentioning Saudi Arabia?

As soon as the US isn't dependent on Saudi Arabia's oil, then I'm almost certain that our policy towards them would change.

Not going to happen. The Saudis haven't been using that oil money to wipe their bums. When the oil runs out your president will go from sucking the Saudis off for oil to sucking them off like every other big corporation.

And what about a boot up the US's butt over rendition? Gitmo? and a variety of other things that they have also done wrong?

That's why we have a Supreme Court, elections, and the right to assemble and protest.  Wow, it's almost as if the US can correct itself, but nobody else in the world cares to actually notice these changes but would rather throw the same old tired **** around all day.  But hey, whatever works. 

You managed to simultaneously both get and miss my point.

If you think (as jr2 seems to think) that other countries should butt out and leave the US to solve its internal problems why are the US so keen to butt in when it comes to everyone else's?  It's bad enough some people want the US to act like the worlds policeman but they aren't acting that way. At best they're the worlds corrupt policeman. Quite happy to butt in when it's good for them but with no problems turning a blind eye to what some others are doing as long as there's money in it for them.

[TrashMan]

Removing religion would remove a reason to hate someone.  It would remove one of the idealogical differences between us all.

A world without any of the current organized religions, while eliminating some of the good sides of the doctrines in them, would eliminate the massive downsides.

Removing religion would remove a reason to love someone.  It would remove one of the idealogical similarities between a lot us (single-diety religions).

good sides >>> downsides


ON TOPIC:

So we actually agree ere that the term ins't racists?
Since you can pretty much have any group with facists in them.

As far as I'm concerned with the US foreign policy, the best thing it could do is focus inward. Leave the rest of the world be for a while without their "help".

[Bobboau]

funny thing I just thought of, a lot of people in this thread are a lot more aware of "Islamo-fascism" then they were a week ago.

[Asuko]

funny thing I just thought of, a lot of people in this thread are a lot more aware of "Islamo-fascism" then they were a week ago.

Haha, true. Bring up something that sounds important to a current issue and people pounce on it.

I'm going to split the removing religion part of the thread cause it's worth a separate discussion on its own.

Admin Authority for the win.

[karajorma]

I figured that the whole islamo-fascism thing was important enough to deserve it's own topic without being swamped by a load of other stuff. 

[IPAndrews]

You don't think that both topics are linked at the hip?

[karajorma]

Not when the discussion was better suited to another currently active thread.

It would even have been on topic there.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I would love nothing more than to see those countries end those practices but a country involved in torture of so called "illegal combatants" is no position to be lecturing anyone else on how to be civilised.

That way you just stop all discussion. Not exactly what you want to do imho.

---------------

That said: I yesterday read an interview with someone who traveled through the Islamic world and met all kinds of people, christians, moderates, leaders of the GIA, regular ahmeds, politicians, etc etc. The destination of his voyage was Mecca (obviously he didn't get in because he wasn't muslim. How's that for inherent discrimination. Imagine catholics prohibiting non-catholics to enter Rome, the world would be too small).
His conclusion more or less came to this: The West and Islamic world run on totally different sets of cultural software, sets that are basically incompatible. And he made a simple but very poignant comparison to prove it:
The Western mindset runs on (self-)doubt and (self-)criticism. It challenges authority, wether religious, political or scientific.
The islamic world runs on certainty. Certainty that god regulates everything, certainty that everything worth knowing is somehow in the Coran. Insh'Allah (sp?), if god wills it, in other words.

[karajorma]

That way you just stop all discussion. Not exactly what you want to do imho.

If you are someone who fiercely campaigns against those injustices in your own country then it's okay. Just because you haven't succeeded in overturning the stupidity of your own government doesn't mean you can't point out the stupidity of others.

But the country as a whole, the government of the country, have no right to get on a soapbox and preach about the horrors of torture in other countries until they've done something about it in their own country. And the people who support that government similarly have no right until they've said that their own country should stop doing it.

So yes American can and should raise awareness of islamo-fascism, but at the same time they should raise awareness of Christofacism too. Cause that's the one that they can deal with simply by voting the wankers out of power.

[jr2]

You know, if we really had a bout of what you call "Christofacism", it would be something else... the Crusades on steroids.  If it weren't inherently wrong and if it weren't for that fact that millions (billions?) would die in such a hijacking of the Christian religion, I'd want to see it just for the simple fact that it would give all the finger-pointers something to point at.. at which point, they would most likely wipe the self-righteous smug looks off of their faces and cease pointing, because it might not be too healthy.  No pun intended. 

EDIT: kara, do you lurk offline waiting for me to post?  This is starting to get creepy.  Or are you always online at ~8:30 AM GMT? 

[karajorma]

{Kosh] I have always been here[/Kosh]

Islamofascism is just as much a hijack of Islam.

[NGTM-1R]

But the country as a whole, the government of the country, have no right to get on a soapbox and preach about the horrors of torture in other countries until they've done something about it in their own country. And the people who support that government similarly have no right until they've said that their own country should stop doing it.

Informal logical fallacy. Because someone tells you something they do is wrong, they have no standing to do so. This is not true. Even leaving aside the issues of scale and severity on the subject others have raised, if a theif tells you not to steal things, he's still correct.

[karajorma]

Yes. But he's going to have trouble claiming the moral high ground. There's nothing much he do if you simply say "I'll stop when you stop" and ignore him.

And that's basically what happens. The USA constantly refuses to sign up to global treaties on such things or to ratify them when it does sign up. So when they say to Iran to obey the treaty Iran simply turns around and says "Why should we, you don't."

[Nuclear1]

Yes. But he's going to have trouble claiming the moral high ground. There's nothing much he do if you simply say "I'll stop when you stop" and ignore him.

And that's basically what happens. The USA constantly refuses to sign up to global treaties on such things or to ratify them when it does sign up. So when they say to Iran to obey the treaty Iran simply turns around and says "Why should we, you don't."

So in this case we're more looking at someone who makes off with some gum or a candy bar every time they go to the grocery store telling a car jacker to knock it off.

Plus, as far as I know, nobody (outside of this forum, at least) is telling Iran to live up to any treaty.  They're telling Iran to knock it off because it's not just against a treaty, it's sickening and repulsive.  Most of the people outside of this forum saying that are the ones pressuring Bush to end the torture at Gitmo and the ones backing the Roper case.