Fascism entails much more than just that; what you described above is more akin to 'totalitarianism'. A pillar of fascism is what Mussolini called "the corporate state", or 'corporatism'. It's very much an economic theory as it is a political one. 'Islamic fascism' doesn't necessarily entail 'corporatism', in fact, many of these 'Islamic fascists' decry the 'war profiteering' and what they view as corporate-sponsered wars against their people; Bin Laden is one of them.
I think there is a distinction which accounts for Iran being a totalitarian regime which supports Hezbollah. There is a distinction of Iran vs. the freedoms and rights in the U.S. Sorry....You make a poor comparison. Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaida are Islamic Facists by definition that is distinct and you can be silly and compare terrorists to the good people of the U.S. military but your argument is weak to me. By your account and utilizing your methodology I could compare Hitler to your mother and state that I have an argument....Sorry.
But that's the thing:...Fascism is a form of totalitarianism. Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism...Much in the way that the spread of influence by a diabolical methodology is the goal...
Nope. Not to me. Look, I understand there are posters here who hate the United States government, that is a right unlike living in Iran and proclaiming a disdain of the Iranian govt.that...There is a distinction of the rights in the United States and the way of life under the government of Iran. There is that distinction. Unfortunate some don't/can't see....perhaps you should stick your fingers into your eyes....because you are not going to make it.
We will get to a chance to vote Bushs' regime out of power. Iranians will never get to vote on who the Grand Poobah is. In the US any Mofo with a birth certificate can run for office. In Iran if you want to run for office you have to be approved by the Grand Poobah. In the United States I can publish a newspaper that says the Bush Regime are fascist. In Iran I would probably be called before the Grand Poobah and I might just lose a hand or maybe disappear. In another thread I surmized that the word police behind the neocon facade probably worked really hard to coin a term they can use to demonize Iran without mentioning them directly, because as much as they hate them, their European buddies still need Iranian oil. fascism Main Entry: fas·cism Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si- Function: noun Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces 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 <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge> http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fascist Iran facist? 1. Exalts nation or race over the individual - check 2. Centralized autocratic government, dictatorial leaders - check 3. Economic and social regimentation - check on the social 4. Forcible supression of oppsition - double check Now you could be the most anti-US biased individual on this board and you would be hard pressed to check any of these conditions in relation to the US. Oh you will but, but we are a nation of diverse special interest and individualist, we have checks and balances on our government and generally have a due process of law for our citizens. If you want to argue that fascism is necessary to an orderly society fine but accept that they at least have the tag right.
i would never argue that one has more rights in iran than the US. i live here. i love it here. and i like the rights in the constitution here. and i certainly think the US lives up to the rights it has granted in the constitution more so than iran does to the rights iran has been granted in their constitution. however the list you stated about fascism...one could make a fairly easy and reasonable argument that under those points the US would qualify as being within that scope of fascism. certainly more so than hezbollah ever would. and hence to describe hezbollah as fascist is intellectually dishonest. but please. change the argument. put words into my mouth. you know the typical. its something this administration is well versed in. a quality of fascism according to you (point three of your list)
Great post, what can insane man say about that?...As I stated, the distinction between Iran and the United States government is apparent. Too bad some will try to propagate otherwise...Thanks Dubious. Down with ISLAMIC FASCISM!
I think Islamic Fascism is directly referring to people like Bin Laden. Certainly Iran and Hezbelloh has elements of it, but not to the degree of people like Bin Laden. Think about this - Bin Laden wants to create an Islamic empire from Spain to India filled with only true believers, and he's willing to kill anyone to do it. Sounds a lot like Hitler to me.
That is true, and it is what I think that Bush believes he is fighting, and he thinks the rest of the moderate Muslim world has been far too weak in stopping the fanatacism. DD
You seem to have a difficulty figuring out Bush, DD. You don't believe he thinks until something happens that frightens you. Then you seem to suddenly discover some thought processes of the man that were heretofore unrevealed. That's fine, if that's what you chose to do. Personally, I think he is the same living embodiment of the Peter Principal today that he was 2 days ago. Keep D&D Civil.
I don't see it that way. IMO, the sudden use of 'Islamic fascism' by the administration is little more than an indirect 'jab' at Iran. It's a 'catchy' phrase, and some in the Christian Right (his base) have been using the term for a long period of time. May be Falwell or Robertson finally convinced him to use it...
The Problem with this administration and the neo-cons and evangelical christians is that they do not differeniate between guys like Bin Laden, Hamas, Hezbelloh, and Iran/Syria...etc. They are all just the "terrorists". Which is a very myopic and dangerous view. Bin Laden is clearly a terrorist. There's no doubt about that. So is Hamas. As much as they want to claim they are a resistance movement, they use terrorism as a means of resistance. They do not only engage the Israeli military, they attack citizens. But then again, they don't have much choice as they are pretty weak. Hezbelloh to me really isn't the same kind of "terrorist". They are fanatical as a group, but are more of a political group about mainting power in the region versus anything else. Point is that each of these entities need to be dealt with independently. Why Iraq ever entered the picture really is a mystery though. Unless you look at this way: What happens if Saddam Hussein acquired nukes? He's simply reinvade kuwait, and no one could do anything. Saddam was more an economic threat in the end then anything else and militarily he was contained as reported by our own CIA. Frankly, we need a leader who can understand that the biggest threat to Bin Laden is Muslims being happy. If the U.S. brought about an end to conflict in the region, Bin Laden would be considered a nut-case by even the more extreme elements. If the U.S. truly worked as a fair broker in the region....we wouldn't be targets. Not that we're on the wrong side in supporting Israel....the problem is that we are taking sides in the first place, and it's like we're taking the side of a few million Jews against a billion Muslims...and that has to be frustrating to many muslims. I think it's time we stop providing Israel with arms and instead allow the U.N. to work towards ensuring Israeli peace. It's time for a settlement, and the reason there is violence is because Israel refuses to listen to the world and face having to give up land. I think if we did something to address that imbalance it would go a long way in saving us hassle at the airports. Although it might be too late. Definitely with this administration.
It saddans me to see people here defend the dictatorship in iran and show complet disregard to the palight of the long suffering people of iran. the mollahs have destroyed th iran people and iran itself. i find it hillarious non-iranians who have never experinced the mollahs brutality sit here and defend them. it's sad really. go ask a iranian in iran how they feel about the mollah's.
wait, didnt one iraqi make a similar post before we invaded and killed thousands of iraqis for their liberation...
Who said anything about any invasion? i've never aked for one and will never will. i dare you or antone else to bringup a post that i did. infact i've argued against it on number of occasions. .. if you're not gonna help, atleast dont compound the problem by defend the mollahs. i'm not talking about you, but some here are calling the mollahs dictatorship a democracy. they'nve never been to iran to see first hand what it is really like.
A democracy doesn't mean that you have a bunch of boy scouts in power, democracies could bring Hitler to power. Since I believe your posts are directed at me, let me reiterate what I said in the past: I am not a fan of the current government in Iran, not a fan at all. The only thing I dislike about some of the debates regarding the current regime in Iran is that some posters like to 'glorifying' the puppet Shah regime in order to put down the current one; that's the wrong approach to take. The truth is that there are some positives and some negatives for the Shah and the Mollah regimes, unless you can admit that, then you're simply an ideologue. I understand you're a secularist and you dislike a 'religious' Iran, and would prefer a secular one. However, almost every example we have of what democracies would bring about in the Muslim world is an 'Islamist' regime...this is true from Palestine to Egypt to Syria to Saudi to Kuwait to Iraq to everywhere else. The current wave or tendency of Muslims to vote Islamists into power would indicate that the majority of Muslims around the world want Islam to play a central role in their lives. While Iran is unique, I have no reason to believe that Iranians want a 'secular' government. I appreciate your opinion as an Iranian whose family left Iran after the revolution took place (there are millions of Iranians who did the same, and from speaking to them, they by and far supported the Shah regime and are very much anti-Islam or anti-religion in general), however, I don't think your opinion is reflective of the majority of Iranians living in Iran. BTW, sorry for derailing the thread somewhat, may be we can have further discussion in another thread.
My opinion is based on the people i have spoken to in iran. they are sick of fanaticale muslims. i guess all these protests by students who have been calling for religion and goverment to be seperated are fabrication.Again the logic that just because other countries in the region like islamic dictatorships, iran is the same. no. itranians are not arabs, there persians. there values and beliefs are completly different to ARABS. IRAN HAS EXPERIENCED islamic dictatorship over the last 27 years and are sick of it.countries like egypt are just about where iran was 27 years ago. there populations are feeling beterayed by the american policies and are looking to religious leaderships. but in iran that was tried and it failed overwhelmingly.
