Papapete clings to neoconnery:
The… statement is rather disingenuous. After all, the countries where Sharia is the law of the land are among the most oppresive in the world, and the jihadists are working violently toward imposition of Sharia on the whole world. It is therefore reasonable to assume that if the jihadists are successful the governments they form will meet the second definition of “fascist”. It’s thus not a stretch to use that definition to describe them now. The only argument is whether the term is useful or not.
Except for the last statement, Papapete’s logic is spurious and the fact that it requires the same mental and semantic gymnastics used by academics to argue for the whiteness of black and so forth should have given him pause.
The secondary definition of fascist is “control”, not “a desire for control”. Since the jihadists are violently opposed to those currently in control where Sharia is the law of the land, that definition of fascist could only be applied to “friendly” governments like Saudi Arabia, not the enemy jihadists. As I mentioned two weeks ago, the U.S. government fits the first definition of Fascist more precisely than do the jihadists, the same is true as well of this secondary definition.
Moreover, the term is utterly useless, as this vastly expanded definition of fascist applies equally well to Genghis Khan, Shalmaneser I, King Philip IV of France, Moctezuma II and Abraham Lincoln. It serves no purpose except to offer intellectual cover for those who support the goals of the jihad but not its methods.
So, to use the term “Islamo-fascist” is to publicly reveal oneself to be either a historical ignoramus, a mendacious propagandist or a mental sloven.
Which one applies to you?