Talk:Slogan 'Islamofascism'

Removed text

Islamfascists are a major political movement within the Islamic world. Their aim is to create an empire based on the original Islamic Kalifate. The Islamfascist's ideology is pre-modern and characterized by absolute refusing to make concessions without use of force against them. A further point is their deep hate against modern type of democracy, equal rights for women and free press. Greater concern is caused by their various terrorist groups which members and sympathisers usually kill innocent civilians deliberately. Speciality Spreading lies and gossips so that their victims look like the aggressors.

"Allah willing, that unjust state... Israel will be erased; this unjust state, the United States will be erased; this unjust state, Britain will be erased... Blessings to whoever waged Jihad for the sake of Allah... Blessings to whoever put a belt of explosives on his body or on his son's' and plunged into the midst of the Jews..."

Sermon by Sheikh Ibrahim Mahdi a few days after Yasser Arafat's cease-fire declaration. Broadcast by Palestinian Television, June 8, 2001

---

PICK OUT ONE THING IN THIS THAT ISN'T FACT: Evil exists. And militant Islamism (the militant Islamism of bin Laden, the Saudis, Saddam Hussein, the Baathists, and the Palestinian suicide bombers) or Islamofascism is the enemy of freedom and the distilled essence of evil. Totalitarian ideologies and fanaticisms have come in gone and have been defeated by America. All these ideologies are one in the same. They hate modernity, hate America, hate freedom, hate capitalism, hate liberal democracy, and love terrorism, oppression, genoicide, and fanatic hatred. In Germany the tyranical enemies of freedom and capitalism rallied behind Nazism, in Italy they rallied behind fascism, in Russia they rallied behind totalitarian socialism and communism, and now in the Middle East, where a lot of dictators and tyrants are threatened by freedom and American values, they rally behind militant Islamics. It is fact that there isnt a single Arab democracy. Muslim leaders (Saddam was just the worst of the lot. There will be more dictators/terrorists to fight like the Syrians) are all tyrants and terrorists who stifle the free press, kill their own people, crush their citizens hopes and dreams, and want to kill Americans like they did on 9/11. Their desire to kill Americans and supprot terror rests on one deep, abiding hatred: their irrational fear of America, which sticks up for freedom and opposes their tyranny with great scarafices, like America is doing right now defeating evil in the Arab countries of Iraq and Afghnaistan.

The ideology of militant Islamist terrorism is the totalitarian enemy that America confronts today. And patriotic Americans say it will be defeated like America defeated totalitarianisms in the past through heroic struggle: Communism, fascism, Nazism.

A lot of conservative commentators who speak with moral clarity call America's struggle against the evil of Islamofascist totalitarianism right now World War IV. That this is freedom's fourth struggle against a totalitarian evil. In WWI it was the despotic rule of the Kaiser, in WWII it was the Nazis, in freedom's third struggle it was the communists in the Cold War (although it wasnt a "hot war" it was another global stuggle like a world war). Now America's forth stuggle is a worldwide campaign against states like Iraq that hate the free world, kill their own people, desire weapons of mass destruction, and support terrorism.

The antiwar liberal left appeases totalitarian evil, which they love to do. They rallied to defend the Communists in Vietnam. Now the amoral liberal left is opposing America's commander in chief George W Bush in his struggle in Iraq. Hundreds of millions were slaughtered (Communism murdered 100 million people while the liberals opposed the Cold War at every step) and Communism threatened the freedom of America and her allies. Conservatives say that America must stop this new totalitarian enemy before its murderous hate claims as many victims as Communism.

Discussion

Islamo-fascism

This would be funny if it weren't sad. Every single sentence in your essay is not acceptable in the article, because (1) it's disputed (even if it's fact, if it's disputed, you can't put it into the wikipedia), and (2), even if you NPOV'ed it by rephrasing, it's not encyclopedic in style. You can get a million free web pages; post your essays there. This is an encyclopedia. -- AdamRaizen 11:37, 2003 Aug 10 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as saying facts that are in dispute can't be posted here. But they need to be handled as disputed facts. The problem with this article is that the tidle and phrasing is deeply NPOV. I'll keep an eye on it, and probably just clear it out unless it is heavily edited for NPOV (and changes title). GayCom

One could rephrase it into something like "Some militant U.S.-Americans believe that Islamic fundamentalism is a kind of fascism. They feel acknowledged by conservative commentators speaking about World War IV in regard to the invasion in Iraq and similiar developments." -- till we *) 11:47, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

That long rant is very interesting. This guy puts every person he dislikes together under one label. Very convenient, and very misleading. Certainly not written in an NPOV fashion. RK 19:10, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Some deny the Holocaust? So are there now articles on the Holocaust? JoeM

Probably including something like "Some right-wing fanaticists deny the existence of the Holocaust." -- till we *) 11:47, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

I follow those very standards in my article. I say that there are some factions on the liberal antiwar left that appease the evil of Islamofascism. JoeM

Take a look at the Holocaust page and see how it was done there. Try rewriting your article to be more encyclopedic in style, and we'll see how we might be able to work it in. -- AdamRaizen 11:51, 2003 Aug 10 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are filled with relevant facts. And that is what I added to the article. So it belongs in an encyclopedia. What you want belongs in an article on why some groups on the liberal left appease Islamofascism. JoeM

There are opinions, and there are facts. The trouble is that people cannot agree about which opinions are factual. In science, we have the scientific method. No-one has yet found an equivalent for politics or religion, so we have to use the NPOV. Even in vexed fields in science, we have to use the NPOV. Just because we do not want to state one set of opinions as irrefutable fact does not mean that we hold the opposing opinions to be factual. We could say, for example: "Islamist X says the USA is evil; American Y says Islamists are evil". -- The Anome 12:04, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In a well written NPOV article, people with diametrically opposed views who each think that the other is evil could read the article and say "yes, that's an accurate presentation of the situation" (if they're intellectually honest). "Islamofascism is the enemy of freedom and the distilled essence of evil" certainly does not fit into that category, and neither does "The antiwar liberal left appeases totalitarian evil, which they love to do", to pick just two of your sentence. You can try to rewrite your article, in which case it may be included, or you play the blind ideological purist, in which case it won't. (Why do I bother?) -- AdamRaizen 12:11, 2003 Aug 10 (UTC)

---

Look up in a dictionary the definition of evil. NOBODY could claim that 9/11 did not fit the definition of evil. NOBODY could claim that Communism, which slaughtered one hundred million innocents, is not evil. Stop it with you pseudo-intellectual relativistic BS. Pick out one statement that is not fact. JoeM

Joe, we are not claiming that 9/11 wasn't evil, or that Communism (in the sense you mean it: You are presumably not criticising the early Christians) wasn't evil. We are just saying that saying so, in the way you are saying it, is not in the form of an encylopedia article. -- The Anome 12:17, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sure they can, they do it all the time. Whether anyone here personally agrees with you is beside the point; your essay is not NPOV. -- AdamRaizen

What about: "The ideology of militant Islamist terrorism is the totalitarian enemy that we confront today."? Is this a fact? Or this is an opinion? Oh, and just one more thing: you know that this -- even if it's English-language -- is an international project? So the "we" in the sentence above includes communists, militant islamist, left-liberal thinkers and even Joe American. Still a fact? Or just an opinion? ((and BTW: for the definition of evil, look it up here -- and try if this definition is viable for your rant or not)) -- till we *) 12:14, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I will change we with "Americans and her allies" so that it's an article for an international audience. But you still haven't disproved a single fact. See the article above. I fixed it. JoeM

---

Okay, I have some spare minutes, so I'll continue playing with the trolls a bit. Let's do it on a sentence-per-sentence basis:

"Evil exists." -- This is, as far as I know, a fact only in some theological and philosophical schools. Others deny the existence of evil.

"And militant Islamism (the militant Islamism of bin Laden, the Saudis, Saddam Hussein, the Baathists, and the Palestinian suicide bombers) or Islamofascism is the enemy of freedom and the distilled essence of evil." -- A lot of propositions packed into one sentence. The Baathists aren't militant islamists, as far as I know, so neither is Saddam Hussein. Hussein was a dictator, and maybe even a totalitarian dictator, but he wasn't an islamist, neither was the Baath party. So, at least there are two or even three different factions in your grab-bag: bin Laden (Taliban), the Saudis and Palestinian suicide bombers, which could be included under a umbrella term of militant islamists, and Hussein and the Baathists, which are secular-totalitarian, as far as I know. All these are called "Islamofacists" by someone, I never heard that term before. I don't think it is a fact to put these three factions all under the label of Islamofacism. The next proposition is: "Islamofacism (what ever that may be) is the enemy of freedom", which is true from a specific Western point of view and definition of freedom. Okay. It is also -- next proposition -- the "distilled essence of evil". That isn't a fact, that's rhetorics.

"Totalitarian ideologies and fanaticisms have come in gone and have been defeated by America." -- There is a typo ("come and gone", I think), and it isn't true that they have been defeated by the U.S.A. First of all, militant christian Americans are a fanaticist faction that isn't defeated by the U.S.A., but seems to be near at the rulers there. Then there is the question if the victory over Nazi Germany, for example, is an American thing, or neither the result of a lot more countries, including the Sowjet Union. And third, didn't America (i.e. the U.S.A.) not only defeat, but also support some of the totalitarian ideologies, like the Taliban, if they were an utility for some short-time American goal?

"All these ideologies are one in the same." -- This is a long and hardly disputed theory in History and Social Scienes, and no fact.

"They hate modernity, hate America, hate freedom, hate capitalism, hate liberal democracy, and love terrorism, oppression, genoicide, and fanatic hatred." -- Just to cite a counter-example -- nationalsocialism was a particular modern ideology. You can't say all totalitarian ideologues are the same and hate and love the same things.

"In Germany the tyranical enemies of freedom and capitalism rallied behind Nazism, in Italy they rallied behind fascism, in Russia they rallied behind totalitarian socialism and communism, and now in the Middle East, where a lot of dictators and tyrants are threatened by freedom and American values, they rally behind militant Islamics." -- Maybe you don't know it, but even today there are post-fascists in the Italian goverment, a close ally of the U.S.A. And it isn't true that they rally behind "militant islamics" -- counter-examples are not only Saddam Hussein, but also Lybias Gaddafi.

"It is fact that there isnt a single Arab democracy." -- Depends on how you define democracy, if you take it formally, their may be some.

"Muslim leaders (Saddam was just the worst of the lot. There will be more dictators/terrorists to fight like the Syrians) are all tyrants and terrorists who stifle the free press, kill their own people, crush their citizens hopes and dreams, and want to kill Americans like they did on 9/11. " -- Saddam Hussein wasn't a muslim leader, so this is counterfactual. Terrorists and dictators aren't the same. And the basic proposition: "Muslim leaders are all tyrants and terrorirsts who stifle the free press" isn't true as well. There is Turkey, there is Indonesia, and if you equal every Muslim leader with Islamofacism, we don't need an article on the last one, because the article on Muslims will be enough. The rest of the sentence about killing their own people, and being part of the 9/11-Al Quaida isn't true for all Muslim leaders also, so it is counterfactual, too.

"Their desire to kill Americans and supprot terror rests on one deep, abiding hatred: their irrational fear of America, which sticks up for freedom and opposes their tyranny with great scarafices, like we are doing right now defeating evil in the Arab countries of Iraq and Afghnaistan." -- Besides of the typos: Afghanistan isn't an Arab country. Do the Saudis or Kuwaitis have an irrational fear of America? And does America (i.e. the USA) "stick up for freedom" all the time?

"The ideology of militant Islamist terrorism is the totalitarian enemy that we confront today." -- it isn't, its part of the programme of the War on Terror of a George W. Bush, but not our programme.

"And patriotic Americans say it will be defeated like we defeated totalitarianisms in the past through heroic struggle: Communism, fascism, Nazism." -- Communism was defeated thru markets, I'd say, not thru heroic patriotic Americans. Also this isn't a fact, but an opinion, related clearly to patriotic Americans. So all the propositions above are maybe only true for patriotic Americans, aren't they?

I don't think this will help to form a NPOV article on Islamofacism (that is an article both an militant islamist and a patriotic American couldn't say is factual wrong)m but I hope it did show you that some of your proposed facts are opinions only, and others are factual wrong. (Besides all ideas of style) ... -- till we *) 12:40, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

---

It fits the dictionary definition of evil (which I am the only one around here read probably) and it is fact. Everything in the article is fact and relevant. This means that it belongs in an encyclopedia article. JoeM

The encyclopaedic style takes a rather more dispassionate, analytical voice. Evercat 12:27, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for proving or disproving facts, especially about highly controversial political ideas. I happen to agree with most of your essay, and I have no interest in disproving it. Nevertheless, many people disagree, and we don't pass off highly controversial political positions as fact in an encyclopedia. -- AdamRaizen

Wikipedia is not a forum for facts? Maybe that is why my excellent, FACTUAL contribution keeps getting deleted?JoeM

Wikipedia is not a forum for proving or disproving facts. It is of course a forum for presenting facts according to NPOV. That Islamofascism is evil is not an undisputed fact. That some consider it evil is a fact. That others consider that view evil and racist is another fact. Etc, etc. -- AdamRaizen

---

You can say all you want that there is a moral equivalency between the firefighters who died on 9/11 and the Islamofascists who flew those planes into the skyscrapers, but so far not one person has been able to challenge any of the facts in my article. JoeM

You've written very few facts, it's all un-encyclopaedic political rhetoric. I challenge you to find an article in Encarta or the Encyclopaedia Britannica that's written like the above. Evercat 12:42, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No-one is claiming any such moral equivalency. Please stop attacking a straw man, and please read the NPOV policy article to see how it works. -- The Anome 12:44, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

JoeM, it looks like you are disputing things that none of us are saying. Relax, man. RK 19:10, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

JoeM writes - "Someone thinks that he challenged the incontrovertible facts in my article. He failed. Saddam WAS an ISLAMOFASCST leader. He has been building mosques, funding suicide bombing jihadis in Israel, preaching jihad and martyrdom, and calling for a struggle to defend Islam. He is linked to Al Qaida, proved by the Prague letter."

Now this is just false. Saddam Hussein was not an Islamofacist. In fact, he is well known to both Arabs and Westerners as secular. He was, I agree with you, a fascist. But we need to precise in our terminology. RK 19:10, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

About the point about the Nazis. Nazism was anti-modern in that it stood up against individual liberties, preached a revival of medieval virtues, and was a revival of medieval barbarism, especially with its anti-Semitism. You also might think that there are many forms of democracy. I was talking about real democracy, not the referendums in Iraq in which Saddam gets 100% of the vote.

I am also disturbed that you drew a moral equivalency between decent, hard-working, patriotic American Christians (like myself) and the evil murderers who flew those planes into the WTC and Pentagon. The only valid complaint you made was all the ours in my article. But I changed that. JoeM 12:50, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Uh, no one drew such an equivalency. Honestly, man, you repeatedly are attacking statements that literally are not there. RK 20:18, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Let's see what Wikipedia has to say about that: And voila:

"Saddam Hussein (or Husayn) 'Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti (صدام حسين) (born April 28, 1937) was the President of Iraq from 1979 - 2003 and the Prime Minister of Iraq from 1979 - 1991 and 1994 - 2003. While largely viewed as an autocratic despot in the West, in the Arab World he is viewed with mixed emotions; on the one hand he is favorably regarded for his support and espousal of nationalistic pan-Arabism, his steadfast refusal to submit to American-led international pressure, and for his role in the economic modernization in Iraq while on the other hand he is widely despised for particular policing tactics used by his Baathist regime, for his prohibition of many Islamic practices and his treatment of minorities and political or perceived political enemies."

See the point about "nationalistic pan-Arabism" and "economic modernization", and also the point about "his prohibition of many Islamic practices"? This an fanatic Muslim leader? It doesn't look like that to me. And re the democraties -- I wasn't talking about the Iraq, I was talking about Bahrein, Kuwait and Turkey. Maybe you should read a bit about Arabs, pan-Arabism, Islamism and so on, and maybe even about Samuel P. Huntington, before you continue to argue that un-informed. -- till we *) 13:01, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

Once again, it is completely beside the point whether anyone has disproven your points, in your opinion or anyone else's. Your essay presents controversial viewpoints, and as such it cannot be presented as fact in the Wikipedia. -- AdamRaizen

--- That Saddam Hussein article looks like total BS. I'm going to have to work on it. Thanks for showing it to me. HE IS AN Islamist. Why else would he be preaching jihad right now? He only prohibited Islamic practices by the Shiites, oppressing his own fellow Muslims of a different sect. He is a SUNNI Islamist. JoeM

A complete tangent, but Saddam is preaching jihad right now because it's politically opportune for him to do so. -- AdamRaizen

The Saddam Hussein article is what the Wikipedia community aggreed is consensual and factous. Maybe you're not interested in NPOV articles? But, either way, if you're so sure about the connection between Hussein and Islamism, surely you could show us a link to a serious(!) web-page which explains this connection, couldn't you? -- till we *) 13:12, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

You can engage in futile attempts to make sense out of the BS coming from Saddam and bin Laden, but regardless of the underlying motives (which all come down to the fact that EVIL EXISTS), it's the same tyranny. JoeM

So, in other words, you don't have any serious references or resources for your assumptions? -- till we *) 13:25, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I do. They are the FACTS presented in my article, like Saddam killing his own people and hating America, like Communism murdering 100 million, like America leading the fights against all kinds of totalitarian evils. JoeM

So, why don't you tell us about the source for your facts so that we can double-check them? -- till we *) 13:33, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

Good. Read about all those mass graves being uncovered in the news. Read about Saddam gassing his own people. Read about Saddam's evils in the Iran Iraq War. And read about Communism in Robert Conquest's books and the Black Book of Communism. The latter was written by a group of FRENCH INTELLECTUALS OF THE LEFT, your kind of people. If they can acknowedge the Communism's murderous history, then anyone intelligent and decent can. JoeM

Interesting that you mention Saddam's evils in the Iran-Iraq War. Guess on whose side the U.S. was at the time. He gassed his own people with U.S. Apaches. And those mass graves include many of the tens of thousands killed by the U.S. in the 1991 war. --Wik 14:49, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

Just give some links for webpages, so this can be done easyly. I know about gassing Kurds in Iraq, and some of the evils in the Iran-Iraq War are included in the Saddam Hussein article. The Black Book of Communism was written by French Intellectuals, but not by left ones -- and is disputed. But besides, I even know that communism has a murderous history. But all this things aren't related to the "facts" of your article. Give a precise source for the assumption that there were killed millions of Iraqis (and not tens of thousand). We want to be precise her, not rhetorics. Give a reference for your assumption that Saddam Hussein has ruled as Islamist. Show us a serious work that puts pan-Arabism, arabic nationalism, Islamism and assorted other dictatorships and ideologies under the umbrella term "islamofacism". And so on. Unless you do this, I must assume that your facts just are assumptions, because the facts I know are pointing in other directions. And some are highly disputed, for example the question if Nazism and fascism belong into the same superclass "totalitarian ideologies" as communism and -- as you seem to propose -- Islamism. There a serious points pro, and serious points contra this inclusion. So you can't state it as a fact. -- till we *) 13:47, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

It was written by French leftists who saw trough the murderous ideology that once clouded their thinking. Right now, I would like to move on to another topic. I can see that facts have no place in an Islamofascism article around here. So im going to write about the horrors going on right now in Red China. JoeM

No, I did not. I am just learned and have a strong moral compass when it comes to loathing those that appease killers. JoeM

Besides the graffiti by (~deleted~), I still don't have an answer to my question regarding references. The only one (besides "the news") is "I am just learned and have a strong moral compass", i.e. "this are assumptions by myself according to my knowledge and my morality", not really the best to start an encyclopedic article, isn't it? -- till we *) 14:04, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

No, the facts are the basis of the article. And so far, you failed in your attempts to dispute any of my facts. JoeM

You claim that facts are the basis for your article, but you won't give us (besides "the news") any hint where we can check your version of the facts. Doesn't look credible to me. -- till we *) 14:39, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

I've unprotected this page again, as its protection has simply caused JoeM to spam his stuff under multiple article titles. Joe genuinely does not seem to understand why we are doing what we are doing, and appears not to have read the NPOV guideline. I suggest editing, rather than protection, is appropriate here. So far, he's an annoying user, rather than a vandal. -- The Anome 14:47, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

OK, I'm taking a different tack, by summarising JoeM's POV as "some American conservatives believe...". Where's Ed Poor when you need him? -- The Anome 15:02, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Nice work on the NPOV version, Anome. :-) Evercat 15:01, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Can you give a cite for the wording of the sermon from any neutral source such as a news organization? My attempts to trace it seem to track it to a Likud website in Holland. Other accounts of it appear to use this as a primary source. I'm removing the quote until there is a cite for this. -- The Anome 13:39, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I found the sermon in question at the ADL website. The source they use is MEMRI which is a 501-C middle east translation service. When the pedia becomes useable again tonight I will re-add the quote.Ark30inf.

I did some searching too, and I think that all I got were conservative POV sources. This AltaVista search (http://www.altavista.com/web/results?q=%22Sheikh+Ibrahim+Mahdi%22&sourceid=mozilla-search&stq=10) seems to indicate that Sheikh Ibrahim Mahdi is not a popular person, and the small number of results means that the quotation may be made up entirely. I think that there is good justification for removing the quotation. Paullusmagnus 13:50, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

P.S. Good work NPOV'ing.

It doesn't matter if he is popular or not since the article is talking about a minority view of Islam anyway, so he is by definition not a member of the majority. He is one of the people the article is about though.24.144.15.243 17:52, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

So far, isn't the article as written all hearsay? It would be helped by identifying the real persons by "commentators", "many writers", "neo-conservatives". I've only seen the term spreading on the web and haven't seen it in print, yet; and from my limited exposure, the term seems to be preferred by the left, rather than the right. Mkmcconn 22:10, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

troll-talk removed (photo of WTC attacks needed here, etc)

troll-talk removed (Wikipedia is a dupe of Israel, etc)

---

I just wanted to commend everyone who's managed to turn this into a surprisingly balanced article despite JoeM's ravings. Not an easy task. -- Jake 01:09, 2003 Aug 20 (UTC)

---

I seriously doubt the Islamofacism actually deserves an article. The word itself maybe belongs in an article on propaganda, it is a clever term. But the ability to coin words does not bring the phenomenom into existence. It seems like a deliberately pejorative word to describe some aspects of Islamism that many people dislike. If I coin the word "AMERICOFACISM" amd use it a few times maybe someone will write an article about it for Wikipedia. I know what I mean by the word but that doesn't make it real, or does it? I suggest deletion of the entire article. Ping 08:49, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

See the top of this page -- oh, never mind, it was removed -- according to http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Islamofascism&btnG=Google+Search, it is a real term used by (I assume) far-right bloggers. This was the Anome's rationale for NPOVing. If the article implies that Islamofascism exists, as opposed to impling that the word exists, then the atricle needs to be fixed. Paullusmagnus 12:49, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

First phrase: should be within modern Islamic culture, I think. If at all. What is sometimes called Islamofascism is a modern phenomenon. Cema 23:10, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Be bold! ;) --Ann O'nyme 06:02, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm fairly close to replacing this whole thing with a redirect to Islamism... Martin 12:51, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Man, it sure seems like the right thing to do. For the most part, this is nothing more than an op-ed piece. The vague but frequent allusions to "some writers", "some analysts", and so forth, make me think that we are laboring over describing various characterizations of Islamism rather than anything distinct from Islamism. That's no good. Aren't we trying then, to recommend an opinion about the writers who use this term (are they Arabs? are they neo-cons? are they right-wing? are they good guys or bad guys?) That doesn't mean that it isn't a potentially interesting op-ed article; but it is nevertheless an op-ed article and is therefore depicting reactions, rather than a phenomenon as such. Mkmcconn 18:09, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

1. It's not strictly a "slogan", but rather a "term"
2. The system seems to be acting squirrelly with regard to page moves today, so it might not be a good day to do a lot of them. The rest of the talk page is still over there.

Hephaestos 20:33, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Rest of talk page moved here. Angela

I'm thinking that Islamofascism should be about the term and who uses it, not as a place for analysis of Islam as a political movement or about the different fundamentalist Islamic movements. All that discussion should go on Islamism, Islam as a political movement, Liberal Islam, Militant Islam, or whatever as soon as there is agreement which of those pages are appropriate and what should be on them. Can we agree that Islamofascism should be for an explanation of the term itself and who uses it though? Ark30inf 00:26, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)