Silly? Do you think this is a game, don’t you? Now that I’m becoming convinced of the chilling, sobering reality of the ramadanogestapos? ? ?

When Osama sends his squadrons of shariosquadristi (from the aircraft carriers he keeps in his cave) to attack the homeland again, the public will lose all patience for you appeasers.

Do you want to have my babies?

glorious godfrey and abb1 have insinuated that my thesis that p is false, on the basis of alleged counterexamples.
But these so-called “counterexamples” depend on construing my thesis that p in a way that it was obviously not intended—-for I intended my thesis to have no counterexamples.
Therefore p. :-)

1.1) fascism had on the whole a complicated relationship to religion, that ranged from Marinetti´s early violent anti-clericalism to Codreanu´s theatrical Orthodox “mysticism”;

1.2) it embraced materialism, “progress” and technical achievement far more enthusiastically;

2.1) saracenofalangistas on the other hand, from the most puritanical and conservative to the more activist Qutb types, are unequivocal about the centrality and primacy of religion in pretty much all matters;

2.2) have in turn a complicated, ambivalent attitude towards many branches of scientific enquiry and technical activity.

Would you call this difference between actual fascists and mahometanoschutzstaffels a minor one?

If you want we could also talk about the different takes on the notion of race of actual fascists and mohammedanoantikominterns, of course.

I mean, I think I´m coming around on this whole idea of Koranicoswastikans.

We know that:

1) Some skrulls are hot (in the tradition of the Barsoom or planet Krishna novels).

2) No islamofascists are hot.

Therefore, all skrull islamofascists have to belong to the contingent of unhot skrulls.

GELDED UNHOT ISLAMOFASCIST EUNUCH SKRULLS ! ! !

Know thine enemy. You are known to him already.

ARE THE ISLAMONAZIS SKRULLS??

Very kind, but I think you’ll find that the cat performs that role.

1) The Taliban are islamofascists. [That’s unquestionable because they are called islamofascists by the people who invented the term. I’ll be generous and grant that they’re muslimonazis too.]

2) There’s a plethora of differences between those “islamofascists” and actual, historical fascists.

3) Therefore, the term “islamofascism” is useless, and one should stick to terms like “violent salafism” or “militant qutbism” which, while still often conducive to oversimplifications or misunderstandings, are far less inaccurate. I’m afraid those terms are less sexy than “islamofascism”, but life sucks.

What this moral relativist critic of my position is proposing is that normal moral judgements such as:

1) ‘Taleban are islamofascists’

should be understood as literally false proposition that actually say:

2) ’ relative to moral code M ,Taleban are islamofascists’.

So it is not literally true that Taleban are islamofascists.

The problem with this argument is that since moral codes are also value judgements ( consist of moral propositions ) that are on this analysis literally false it becomes a puzzle how anyone could ever believe and be motivated to act on any moral judgements including the once that say that it is wrong to use the term ‘islamofascist’.

In other words the criticism is incoherent.

Awesome, and awesomer still.

It also rather misses the point (as did Timothy Garton Ash) when he made the same claim) that actually, the reason they swung against Aznar because he got caught out in telling a very big lie about the Madrid bombs. He and his chums attributed it to ETA, for political reasons, when they knew very well this was not true. When they were found out, the Spanish electorate threw them out – not because they approved of ETA or were scared of Al-Qaeda, but because they thought bombings causing large numbers of deaths were a serious matter and not to be pissed about with or lied about for political advantage.