What substantial distinctions would you make between the original fascists and a group like the Taliban?
While I am certain you are right that they are looking for extra oomph, at the same time I see the Taliban (and by extension Bin Laden and AQ) as substantially similar to fascists.
Well, “fundie” is the new n-word, an epithet that feeds the right-wing-Christian offenderati’s persecution complex.
Except, as my own post points out, there are other definitions that fit; and ones which can be found in the same Wiki article as Griffin’s, I might add.
Certainly, one could pick a definition that emphasizes some aspect of fascism that is wholly incompatible with “Islamism”, such as ‘dedication to the state’ or ‘dedication to race’, declare that to be the essence of fascism, and state that the two are incompatible.
Alternatively, one could pick another definition, which contains quite different “essential” elements, and see the two as fundamentally similar.
Why? Because “fascism” was never at any time some sort of unified and coherent movement, but a kind of catch-all description for a whole bunch of different movements which had only tangental similarities.
First the Taliban were not not Facists. They were NOT Pashtun nationalists, they didn’t beleive in the inate superiorty of the Pashtun race, they were not obsessed with expanding the borders Afghanistan (they had there hands full controlling all of Afhghanistan, let along trying to expand into Iran or whereever). They were I guess a little “closer” to being facist in that they were an authoritarian regime ruling a nation state (or most of it). But they there was certainly no cult of the personailty around the Taliban leader (Mullah Omar was practically a recluse who did not appear in public, and refused to be photographed, the complete antipathy of a facist dictator).
Secondly the Taliban are a completely different entity to Al-Qiada, they may have been allied but lumping them together was seriously damaging to the war on terror. In terms of defeating the Taliban the Afghanistan campaign was almost unqualified success, we managed to defeat them with very few casualties and without getting dragged into the kind of guerilla campaign that so damaged the soviets. In terms of defeating Al Qiada it was total failure, we deprived them of a base of operations and thats it, their leadership escaped, for the most part, unscathed. What was a very good strategy for defeating the taliban (relying on local miltia, backed up by US air power) was a terrible strategy for defeating AQ,
And lumping AQ with other totally unrelated organisations (Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime, Iran, Hezzbolla, etc.) is even more damaging to our cause, and synical political trick to get the US public to support policies they would not otherwise support.
How about Islamo-atheists?
No-one seriously thinks Ba’athists are Islamofacsists. Remove the “Islamo -” prefix. 
The term “fascist” was always a grab-bag, including such different movements as Franco’s Spain, Mussolini’s Italy, and of course Hitler’s Germany - and some even used it to describe Japan.
While use of such grab-bag terms may indeed lead to sloppy thinking, what is needed is some sort of argument that this term is worse than another.
I dunno. “Fascists” without an aggressively nationalistic and sometimes racist agenda don’t sound much like fascists to me. I guess I have to question the utility of that overbroad definition you found in Wikipedia, and I really question the applicability of substituting “religious” for “nationalist”.
“Fascists” of the original, pre-1945 varied varied widely in their commitment to racism and anti-semitism. Ask someone these days about what “fascism” means, and one of the first things they are likely to come up with is “hatred of Jews”. You and I know that this was something pushed in particular by the variant of fascism known as Nazism - not all fascists were into Jew hatred, or at least, certainly not to the same extent.
The “Islamicists” these days are also into Jew-hatred, which sort of binds them to the pre-1945 variety. They are not into “nationalism” which seperates 'em from it. However, they have to a marked degree religious chauvanism - the question in my mind is, is that really wholly different from nationalist chauvanism?
I’d say one could argue that the facists by and large attempted to make the nation the religion of the people. Modern ‘Islamicists’ want to make their religion into the nation of the people. Is that really all that different?
Maybe not, but there’s a servicable term out there already for this: Theocracy.
All of which were based on extremist Nationalism, racial supremecy, and an all-powerful dicator. Certainly two of these first two are missing from Al Qiada, and arguably the last one is too. Bin Laden is figurehead, the central leadership has very little control over what its “franchises” are doing, this is the very anti-thesis of facism where nothing gets done without the approval of the leader (in the facist regimes mentioned above approval by the Fuhrer was the be all and end all policy-making).
And yet, a number of neo-cons specifically employed the term in regards to Iraq during the run up to the invasion. Whether neo-cons are simply sloppy thinkers or whether (some) neo-cons wanted to deliberately distort the connection between the Islamists and the Ba’athists, I will leave for another discussion.
And yet, every single one of those countries actually exhibited the typical markers for fascism, (Spain was less emphatic about “the people,” but otherwise matched the hallmarks): controlled economy with industralists working directly with the government while permitting capitalism at the mom-and-pop store level, the idolatry of the leader, the appeals to some lost (and, occasionally mythical) grandeur of the nation, excessive militarism, exaltation of the nation, itself, over the individual, etc.
There are any number of useful terms. Applying “fascism” is simply a way to avoid studying the actual situation.
True, they were not Pashtun, they were Arab Islamic extremists that treated the Pashtun as well as anyone that did not buy into their extreme brand of religion as a 2nd class citizen.
Their philosophical goal was to create an Islamic world. Mullah Omar felt that anything less would be viewed poorly by you know who.
If Mullah Omar wasn’t there, would they have gone in the direction they did? Maybe not a cult of personality, but originally the Taliban were students fed up with the killing by the warlords, the movement changed directions at some point and I assume he was a factor in that.
I lump Taliban, AQ and Bin Laden together because they share the same philosophy of an islamic world with no tolerance for non-believers. In addition Bin Laden has ties to both, so it seems like a safe connection.
How about Hesperophobics?
Again I’d argue thats a pretty bad characterization (Saddam Hussein’s Baath party was Stalinist, not Facist). Though I guess thats another historical can of worms (the whole Stalin/Hitler comparison). Either way it was certainly NOT islamist (one of the co-founders of the Baath party was Christian).
However IMO its certainly no coincidence that term gained prominance during build up the Iraq war, when the Neo-cons were synically trying to equate Saddam with Al Qiada and 9/11.
No they weren’t they WERE largely Pashtun. There were no Arabs in the Taliban leadership. The Taliban was a local movement, heavily supported by the Pakistani security services to further their own foreign policy goals.
Cite ? I have never seen any indication of the Taliban as anything other than local movement (unlike AQ, of course)…
Oh boy here we go again - YES they will be afforded such protections IF they follow the rules stated in the G.C. which would afford them such protections. Those protections just don’t apply willy-nilly, you have to play by rules set forth, which the Islamic fascists have not followed.
In addition, Hitler was inspired by Mussolini. I’m not sure about the roots of Franco’s politics, but I suspect there was a link there also.
Anyhow, Bush could call them Islamo-fascists as long as I am allowed to call Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggart Christo-fascists.
I guess I’m just naive. I thought prisoners captured during a war were prisoners of war. My bad.
So if, for example, they happen to be accused of commiting a crime on U.S. soil they’ll just have to settle for all the rights afforded under the U.S. Constitution instead of the G.C.?
If so, it sure sucks to be them! They won’t get the nifty CARE packages from the IRC! I guess they’ll only be left with all that boring, high-brow stuff like a lawyer, a speedy trial, notification of the charges against them and the right to be judged by a jury.
Of course, that’s assuming they follow the rules stated in the U.S. Constitution that would afford them such protections. You know… the rules about being a human being?
Oh gee whiz! It sounds like I’m a misty-eyed liberal standing up for my buddies the Terrorists!. Actually, it’s not that way at all. I’m standing up for the poor schmuck who was born with the wrong last name or who looked too much like someone else (“he had a big beard, officer!”) and was accused of a crime he didn’t commit.
Do you really think he’s hesitant to use “fundamentalist” because he might offend the RR? That sounds a bit far-fetched. Do Christian fundamentalists even call themselves “fundamentalist” much? I thought that the more common term was “Evangelical” and that “fundamentalist” was more often used derisively by non-fundamentalists.
Abd since our beef isn’t with Islamic fundamentalists, per se, why use that term? I think Islamo-fascist is a better discroptor, even if it isn’t perfect.
I know I’m getting all anecdotal here, but I am related by marriage to some folks who would refer to themselves as fundamentalist Christians (they would even put a vocal emphasis on the word “Christian”), with the understanding this means they believe in the literal truth of the Old and New Testaments.
Not all evangelicals are fundamentalists by any stretch, so I don’t know what other term they could use to define themselves. The former set are largely defined by their emphasis on spreading the word, walking the walk as an example to convert others, and being born again.