Oh, so we're fighting fascism now?

[toasty]

Any else notice that "fascist" and "fascism" have become the new buzzwords for what it is that we're fighting now? I guess the mystique of "terrorist" is wearing off, so the administration has to find a new term to scare the American public into allowing it to do whatever it wants, and what better term than "fascism," the force we were fighting in WWII, a war that everyone in their right mind agrees had to be found and was fought for the right reasons.

The problem, of course, is that what is going on in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the world is not fascism. Not even close. Bad, yes, but fascism, no. This is more than just a disagreement about semantics, though -- it transcends "spin" and is more emblematic of propaganda, which ironically is something that is part of a fascist regime. Attach the war to a term that everyone agrees is bad (whether it applies or not) and you have to support the war, right?

How dumb do Bush, Rummy et al think we are? I'll be curious to see how this goes over. Has the administration lost so much credibility now that people will see it for what it is, or will they get sucked in by this "new" "threat?"

[anonin]

Re: Oh, so we're fighting fascism now?

Any else notice that "fascist" and "fascism" have become the new buzzwords for what it is that we're fighting now? I guess the mystique of "terrorist" is wearing off, so the administration has to find a new term to scare the American public into allowing it to do whatever it wants, and what better term than "fascism," the force we were fighting in WWII, a war that everyone in their right mind agrees had to be found and was fought for the right reasons.

The problem, of course, is that what is going on in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the world is not fascism. Not even close. Bad, yes, but fascism, no. This is more than just a disagreement about semantics, though -- it transcends "spin" and is more emblematic of propaganda, which ironically is something that is part of a fascist regime. Attach the war to a term that everyone agrees is bad (whether it applies or not) and you have to support the war, right?

How dumb do Bush, Rummy et al think we are? I'll be curious to see how this goes over. Has the administration lost so much credibility now that people will see it for what it is, or will they get sucked in by this "new" "threat?"

yea, its crossed the line and is just now utterly ridiculous, only november will tell how the american public feels, so we'll see.

[Lorn]

Re: Oh, so we're fighting fascism now?

WIth November just around the corner and the Republicans looking like they might lose control of both the House and the Senate, it was only a matter of time to start seeing stunts like this being spun.

[thesightless]

Re: Oh, so we're fighting fascism now?

setting up the spin and buzzwords for the election year IMHO. remember last time when the democrats loaded up with ''american jobs'' and the republicans were using ''terror'' and stability. ignore them and research the candidates.

[Miroslav]

Re: Oh, so we're fighting fascism now?

How dumb do Bush, Rummy et al think we are? I'll be curious to see how this goes over. Has the administration lost so much credibility now that people will see it for what it is, or will they get sucked in by this "new" "threat?"

I predict that it will go over pretty well because most Americans don't know jack about the definition or history of fascism. To most Americans, it will probably just translate as "bad people". And most agree that there are bad people out there trying to kill us...so, it'll work pretty damn well. I think this is also the fundamental reason why all of the policies currently in place prevail.

On a more technical level...remembering from my college history courses, there is enough of room for interpretation in the technical definition of fascism where you could at least carry out a long argument on why it might apply in some way to all kinds of international situations...

[superdave]

Re: Oh, so we're fighting fascism now?

Bush said "Islamic fascists" not just fascists. This term is being used frequently by the right wingers and the right wing media. Michael Savage was the first I heard use the term "Islamic fascists". And I'm sure that Bush's speechwriters are right wingers who use that term frequently. It's a strong buzzword that has probably been tested with conservative voters to get them energized and in the voting booth in November.

How are the terrorists in the Middle East really not Islamic fascists? Don't they preach convert or be beheaded? Also don't the Islamic terrorists want their countries completely ruled by Islamic law? I don't see the them compromising their values and beliefs.

[thesightless]

Re: Oh, so we're fighting fascism now?

cant they just be like

''we hate towel heads, so should you''.

at least i would appreciate the honest opinion.

[Lorn]

Re: Oh, so we're fighting fascism now?

An honest opinion from a politician...now there is a novel idea.

[Localizer]

Re: Oh, so we're fighting fascism now?

Bush said "Islamic fascists" not just fascists. This term is being used frequently by the right wingers and the right wing media. Michael Savage was the first I heard use the term "Islamic fascists". And I'm sure that Bush's speechwriters are right wingers who use that term frequently. It's a strong buzzword that has probably been tested with conservative voters to get them energized and in the voting booth in November.

How are the terrorists in the Middle East really not Islamic fascists? Don't they preach convert or be beheaded? Also don't the Islamic terrorists want their countries completely ruled by Islamic law? I don't see the them compromising their values and beliefs.

that's why democracy doesn't work for everyone....as aristotle, plato, and socrates pointed out....

[Lorn]

Re: Oh, so we're fighting fascism now?

http://www.word.com/unabridged/archives/2006/09/word_history_of_4.html

Interesting read about the origin of the word Fascism.

[thesightless]

Re: Oh, so we're fighting fascism now?

i'll take the statement a libertarian politician from cali (good luck btw) said a few months ago.

if they simply told us in the beginning, that an invasion of iraq is in the best interest of the people of iraq, the world economy, and the people of the world, in that an invasion of iraq will aid in the fight against those who teach terror, will eventually open up more oil to the world's economies and people, and then went on to cite the human rights violations and genocide that occured under saddam,.... then at least we could argue with thier opinions and direction of fact, rather than arguing about how they lied. i could accept the fact that while i hate war, it might garner a positive result for both the people of iraq and have many filter down effects, but no.... they told us what they told us. and now we cant get anything done.

i thought about this, and to be honest, im in his boat.