You go, Harry

Harold Evans continues a winning streak of speaking the blunt truth about the threat of Islamic fascists and the danger of weak and woozie PC opposition to them. His latest at Comment is Free:

A whole culture of complaint has grown up among the media and among leaders of the Muslim community. The protest letter signed by 38 Islamic organizations, with three MPs and three Lords, is typical of the buck-passing. They blame British foreign policy, which is unhistorical. . . . By attacking Blair instead of Osama, the protesters give the radicals a free pass and feed a sense of alienation among perennially disgruntled youth. . . .

As for too much of the media, the attitude is that typified in a 52-page document from the International Federation of Journalists – 52 alarm bells – where FIEJ describes the response of government to terrorism as “a devastating challenge to the global culture of human rights established almost 60 years ago … we are sleepwalking into a surveillance society.”

A devastating challenge to the global culture of human rights?

Speaking personally of challenges to human rights, I’d rather be photographed by a hidden surveillance camera than travel on a train or bus with killers carrying bombs in their backpacks. . . .

he civil rights lobbies are working from a passé play book. They are blind to the lethal nature of the new Salafist totalitarianism. They won’t recognize that we are facing an irrationalist movement immune to compromise and dedicated to achieve its ends of controlling every aspect of daily life, every process of the mind, through indiscriminate mass slaughter. It is a culture obsessed with death, a culture that despises women, a culture devoted to mad hatreds not just of Americans and Jews everywhere, but of Muslims anywhere who embrace a less totalitarian, less radical, more humane view of Islam. These Muslims are to be murdered, and have been in their thousands, along with “the pigs of Jews, the monkeys of Christians” and all the “dirty infidels”.

  • http://www.oxfordalliance.blogspot.com Tom

    Jeff, I am not sure that fascist is the right word to describe Islamists in most cases, but I will grant that sometimes the shoe does fit:

    Why call the al-Qaida puppet KLA the only authentic Islamo-fascist organisation?

    . . .this Lieberman, who makes a public spectacle of his religious beliefs, who pontificates from a place higher than Morality, this Lieberman fronts for the KLA who are the self-proclaimed heirs to the Balli Kombëtar, the World War II Albanian fascists (3). This Lieberman, who flaunts his Jewishness as if it were a theme park, to the disgust of many Jews, including the writers of this article, this Lieberman fronts for the descendents of the very people who murdered nearly every Jew in Kosovo.

    But please note: since being put in power by NATO and the UN, Senator Lieberman’s beloved KLA has driven from Kosovo those Jews who managed not to be killed by the Balli Kombëtar during W.W. II, driven them out along with their descendents. That is, his KLA has completed the job of producing a judenfrei ‘KosovA.’

    One final note. The ‘Bosnians” whom Sen. Lieberman is so proud of having championed were already being secretly armed and trained by the U.S. at the time he proposed legislation to openly arm them and train them. This seems to be a pattern with Lieberman.

    And who were these “Bosnians?” Not the Serbs who lived in Bosnia. Nor the moderate Muslims who lived in Bosnia; they were militarily allied with the Serbs. Rather, he wanted to openly arm the extreme Islamist faction led by one Alijah Izetbegovich whose views are clearly stated in a book:

    “… The first and foremost of such conclusions is surely the one on the incompatibility of Islam and non-Islamic systems. There can be no peace or coexistence between the “Islamic faith” and non-Islamic societies and political institutions. … Islam clearly excludes the right and possibility of activity of any strange ideology on its own turf. Therefore, there is no question of any laicistic principles, and the state should be an expression and should support the moral concepts of the religion. …” (”Islamska Deklaracija” or “Islamic Declaration” by Alijah Izetbegovic, p. 22)

    And by the way, as a young man this Izetbegovic was a passionate supporter of the Mufti of Jerusalem, an ally and friend of Adolph Hitler, who recruited tens of thousands of Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo and Albania into the Waffen SS which then slaughtered many tens of thousands of Serbs, ‘Gypsies’ and Jews in Yugoslavia.

    (See: George Lepre, Himmler’s Bosnian Division. The Waffen-SS Handschar Division 1943-1945, Schiffer Military History, Atglen, PA, 1997).

    http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/garris/duringthe.htm

  • http://www.oxfordalliance.blogspot.com Tom

    Harold Evens seems willing to surrender liberty for a little temporary safety.

    If we surrender our civil liberties, the Islamists have won. If we surrender our civil liberites, we are removing the safeguards that protect us from totalitarian government.

    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    Franklin’s Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    Because who can argue with fortune-cookie logic like this:

    There can be no security without freedom – but no freedom without security.

    Thanks, Harry!

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    Tom,

    Bear in mind that Mr. Evans is writing from the perspective of our former colonial masters, who didn’t see any problem in routinely violating our civil liberties in the name of a little security. This is why we have a Bill of Rights and the Brits are currently debating granting their constabulary the right to administer “on-the-spot” justice:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4793117.stm

    Besides, anyone who uses the term “Islamo-fascism” with a straight face automatically disqualifies himself from serious consideration.

  • http://deleted Mike G

    Funny, Jersey Exile, I feel the same way about anyone who dismisses the concept of “Islamo-fascism” with a straight face.

  • http://robertdfeinman.com/society Robert Feinman

    I would have thought that Jeff would be able to recognize propaganda when he sees it. After all he is a media critic.

    “Islamic fascist” or “Islamofascist” is one of the latest hot-button phrases invented by the rightwing sound byte squad. It joins a long list like “welfare queen”, “fellow travelers”, etc.

    What is great about this newest term is that it has no inherent meaning and thus, the listener can imbue it with whatever meaning he wishes. Is a fascist a person willing to use totalitarian means to control a population? Or is a fascist a person who believes in the type of government-industry alliance that Mussolini put in place?

    If there needs to be a sterotyping of 1.6 billion people a more accurate (and less inflammatory) term would be Islamic (or Muslim) fundamentalist.

    The sound byte squad nixed that because it sounds too close to Christian fundamentalist.

    The basic dispute these days seems to be those who have lost a sense of proportion over the level of threat posed by non-state actors, and those who are willing to allow normal police type of activity to counter specific threats.

    The fear level of the former group shows how effective the propaganda campaign has been. Many regard the present situation as more dire than that faced during WWII or the cold war. The difference is that in WWII the west had leaders like FDR and Churchill who tamped down fear and gave people a sense of pride and purpose.

    We have no such leaders these days. Even critics of the current admin just promise to do a better job of fighting “terror” instead of evaluating the risks rationally.

    Sorry, Jeff you have been used.

  • Kat

    No, Robert, you are being used–as an apologist tool for terrorists.

  • http://robertdfeinman.com/society Robert Feinman

    Kat:
    Have you tried anti-psychotic medication? It might calm you down and make you more fun to be with for your friends and family.

    I haven’t excused anything or defended unlawful acts. I simply said that many people are over the top when it comes to appreciating the actual level of threat that we are exposed to.

    Thank you for proving my point. And like all trolls you attack the messenger since you can’t process the message. It must be terrible to live in fear all the time. How do you get through the day?

  • Kat

    I get through my days fine without my head stuck up some camel’s ass, worrying about using an inflammatory term to describe muslim terrorists. If islamofascists fits, then I say wear it.

  • http://www.digitalstreetjournal.com Jonathan Trenn

    Kat, you’re not going to be pleased, but I’ve never like the term ‘Islamofascist’, but we’re stuck with it.

    Anyway, whatever the term in used, I agree with the concern that, as in the article pointed out yesterday by Kat, that some Muslim immigrants want to have seperate laws that govern them withing Britain. Not nationalized laws, but seperate ones that allow them to live under Sharia laws – making them actually legal, but only applyl to Muslims.

    Not only are these types able to seperate church and state as it applies to them, they’re making it impossible to allow for full integration. That’s very dangerous. I think this is a trend we’re going to see more of in Europe. And the result of it will be more violence and bloodshed.

    Good article there Kat, my new buzzmachine buddy. ; )

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    See, but the term doesn’t fit. It’s a deliberate attempt by people who by now should know better to equate the War on Terror with World War II, which even if you do acknowledge the fact that terrorism must be fought on a global scale is simply a crock of shit. Just as Lefties trot out the tired Vietnam analogies, so too do the hawks misuse history to justify a war which even by the Pentagon’s admission has gone way off the rails at this point.

    When al-Qaeda’s Panzers overrun Poland, maybe calling them “fascists” will be appropriate. Until then let’s just call them terrorists and hunt them down and kill them as such, mmmkay?

  • Kat

    Is there a country on earth free from islamic terrorism? Why not? They are overrunning in Nigeria, Sudan, Ambon.etc. etc.. They genocided the Armenians. What will it take? Oh, yeah, Poland.

  • http://www.digitalstreetjournal.com Jonathan Trenn

    Kat – the genocide in Armenia was Islam vs. Christian. It was Turks killing Armenians. One of my closest friends is of Armenian descent. His family escaped – or the most part. Just saying.

    Where is Ambon?

  • http://www.tyndallreport.com Andrew Tyndall

    Feinman & Jersy Exile–

    I could not agree more about the deplorable, and lazy, spread of the term “fascist.” Last week, President Bush used the term both to describe Hezbollah and the 24 suspects arrested in England for the alleged liquid bomb plot.

    What either group had to do with the political traditions of Benito Mussolini or Francisco Franco or even Juan Peron is beyond me. Perhaps Bush thought Sheikh Nasrallah was planning to make the trains run on time!

    If anything, the tactics of the alleged jetliner bomb cell look more like C19th anarchists or a C20th-style Baader-Meinhof gang than a bunch of proto-Brown Shirts. As for Hezbollah, its combination of an armed militia plus social welfare agency plus political party, seems no different from any number of national resistance organizations, like Kurdistan’s peshmerga or Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tigers or the Palestine Liberation Organization. Hezbollah is different in that it is explicitly Islamist, which takes care of the “Islamo-” part of the label but does not address the “-fascist.”

    It is my impression that Christopher Hitchens was the first to popularize the “Islamofascist” label. He deployed it in support of Kurdish rebels, trying to make the analogy between their independence movement in northern Iraq with the struggle of the republicans during the Spanish Civil War and trying to conflate Saddam Hussein’s Baath regime with Osama bin Laden’s Salafism.

    What an irony that the Kurds, our current allies against so-called Islamofascism, were using the same techniques of building a “state within a state” that Hezbollah is now condemned for.

    President Bush is really not helping us understand where he is trying to lead us when he copies Hitchens’ formulations. Fascism was a C20th response to Bolshevism, using rhetoric of racial purity and agrarian nostalgia for the homeland, to build support among a dispossessed lower middle class for a corporate-military state organized around a cult of an ultranationalist father figure.

    Almost six years into his Presidency, it is too much to expect Bush suddenly to discover the virtues of precision in language. But there is absolutely no reason why the rest of us should share his sloppiness.

  • Kat

    Jonathan: Britain is not the only country where muslims are demanding sharia. Canada was another, and it came very close to passing. I remember many Canadian muslim women speaking against it, but I never followed it to its demise.
    Militant Islamism is one of the fastest-growing movements in the world today. Like Communism and Nazism, Islamism is a brutal, coercive utopian movement – a politicized and virulent interpretation and implementation of Islam — bent on nothing less than total world domination. Therefore islamofascism fits the disease.

  • http://robertdfeinman.com/society Robert Feinman

    JT:
    Just so you know many religious communities impose laws of their own. For example in orthodox judiasm the divorce process is called a “get”. Here’s a link to a description:
    http://www.kayama.org/get.htm

    If the husband refuses to grant a “get” the wife can’t get divorced. In many cases various economic pressures are applied to the husband as an inducement.

    Notice that all of this is outside the civil laws for divorce. It is strictly in the minds of the participants whether they are really divorced in terms of their religious beliefs.

    Other cultures, even in the US, blend such religious practices with civil ones. I don’t know the specfics of the issues in the UK, but such demands are not as unusual as you might think.

    On the other point, the fact that nationalist and religious groups are fighting with each other in many parts of the world does not imply that they have a beef with us. We become targets when we support one side or another in internal disputes. Do you really care which side wins in East Timor?

    Do the Timorese really care which party wins in the 2008 US elections?

  • http://www.digitalstreetjournal.com Jonathan Trenn

    Here’s an interesting artilce for all, including Kat, “FM Mullahs”:

    http://www.cjr.org/issues/2006/4/fatah.asp

    BTW – Jeff, I looked at CJR’s list of media-related blogs…they don’t list you…they are stupid.

  • Kat

    Ambon is Indonesia–where muslims are genociding the Christians to make the land pure.
    {Having taken Thalib’s place in charge of the Laskar Jihad fighters on Ambon, Ustad Attamimi now preaches against the Christians and incites Muslims to take violent revenge upon Christians. Attamimi uses a “hate-radio” station on Ambon to broadcast provocative speeches.

    “We will have no reconciliation until all the Christian infidels and their leaders have been butchered and killed,” Attamimi said. An estimated 5,000 people have died during the unrest in the Maluku Islands(also known at the Moluccas).} The figure is much higher than 5,000 now. Maybe they are all dead. This was in 2002.

  • http://www.digitalstreetjournal.com Jonathan Trenn

    But Robert, there’s a difference between religious rules/doctrines and civil law. For instance, I’m Catholic and I married a Protestant. Because I didn’t get a dispensation by a priest, I’m not allowed to receive communion. The church doesn’t (or more appropriately didn’t) recognize my marriage. Either way, I’m now divorced.

    Not only can I not receive communiion, I can’t marry in the Catholic church without going throught an annulment process…even though the Church doesn’t recgonize the marriage. Actually, by Catholic standards, I could easily get an annulment.

    But, anyway, in a civil arena, I’m fine. I can get married. And the government doesn’t have jurisdiction on communion.

    Point is, religious communities can have rules, regulations, and restrictions related to religious issues. But that doesn’t mean it is civil law. In Britain, it seems some of these activists want a seperate civil law to apply to them.

  • Kat

    Jonathan–very interesting. Sad that the more tolerant version has less appeal than the radicalized crap. I wish they’d send some kind of a force into this area. I think this is where Al Queda and all other terrorists sow their seeds of hatred and run their killing camps. They’d likely find that worm Osama holed in some cave there.

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    Britain is not the only country where muslims are demanding sharia. Canada was another, and it came very close to passing. I remember many Canadian muslim women speaking against it, but I never followed it to its demise.

    The Canadian sharia arbitration proposal was only for issues of divorce and child custody and was modelled specifically on the already-existing religious arbitration provisions for Christianity and Judaism.

    As for U.K. Muslims groups calling for the implementation of sharia:

    The Union of Muslim Organisations of the UK and Ireland claims to be a widely representative umbrella group. However, it does not include more influential and high-profile bodies such as the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). Inayat Bunglawala, spokesman for the MCB, also attended the meeting but distanced his group from the calls for Sharia law.

    He said: ‘We believe one legal code should apply for all citizens of the UK. There is no place for multiple legal systems for people of different religious or ethnic backgrounds.

    Mr. Bunglawala sure sounds like a fascist to me!

  • Kat

    No one ever said all muslims were fascists. Jonathan quoted a young muslim who disagreed with the proposal also. Problem is the fascists are running islam and the moderates are not doing much about it. Is this the same Bunglawa who defends imposing muslimism on the UK??
    { “Proscribing these groups sends a strong signal that the UK is not prepared to tolerate those who support terrorism,” said Reid.
    Still, the MCB activist is not convinced that the ban is justified and questions its impact.
    “This will not be very effective, I have no doubt about that,” Bunglawala said. “Both groups will simply change their names or go underground.”
    He believes that the reasons given by the Home Office to ban the two groups are not justified.
    “Calling for establishing a state with Islamic values should not be a crime,” he said.
    Bunglawala fears that the move would only fan up Islamophobia, saying that it reflects the behavior of an “authoritarian government not a democracy.”
    But he stressed there should not be a cause for concern among other Muslim groups, saying authorities have not banned groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir.}
    “Mr. Bunglawala sure sounds like a fascist to me!Jersey Exile “~~~~You may be right. I’ve read some of his shit at islamonline.

  • http://www.digitalstreetjournal.com Jonathan Trenn

    I have to head out for the rest of the day. Talk to everyone later…

  • http://www.oxfordalliance.blogspot.com Tom

    With the exception of the KLA, I don’t believe that Islamists are fascists. So why label them as such? Could the reason be (selected passages from Blair’s essay on the misuse of language by politicians):

    The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable.” The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way.

    Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because out thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.

    When one watches some tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the familiar phrases — bestial atrocities, iron heel, bloodstained tyranny, free peoples of the world, stand shoulder to shoulder — one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy: a feeling which suddenly becomes stronger at moments when the light catches the speaker’s spectacles and turns them into blank discs which seem to have no eyes behind them. And this is not altogether fanciful. A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance toward turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself. If the speech he is making is one that he is accustomed to make over and over again, he may be almost unconscious of what he is saying, as one is when one utters the responses in church. And this reduced state of consciousness, if not indispensable, is at any rate favorable to political conformity.

    In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism., question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, “I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so.” Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

    “While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.”

    The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as “keeping out of politics.” All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer. I should expect to find — this is a guess which I have not sufficient knowledge to verify — that the German, Russian and Italian languages have all deteriorated in the last ten or fifteen years, as a result of dictatorship.

    “Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. . . .”
    George Orwell/Eric Blair
    http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

  • syn

    When Ahmadinejad declares Islam will dominate the world what is he saying?

  • syn

    WWII Nazi Germany and Islamic Totalitarian Facsists have one thing in common; to wipe the earth clean of all Jewry.

    The Grand Mufti and Hilter were allies.

    Since we are on wordplay, The National Socialist Democrats (aka Nazis) were consumed by a secular Leftist ideology of purity uber alles. So much so, that by 1938 the word Chirstmas had been changed to Yuletide and all Christmas carols were banned from public schools. After all, how can there be a God whne they had Hitler.

    But as Burgess Meridith’s librarian character Mr. Wordsworth heard, in The Twilight Zones “The Obsolete Man”, when facing his execution by the collective purity of The State “THere is no God, Mr. Wordsworth!”

    “The Obsolete Man” the very best show TV has or will ever offer.

  • http://www.oxfordalliance.blogspot.com Tom

    syn asks: When Ahmadinejad declares Islam will dominate the world what is he saying?

    I’d say he is declaring that Islam will dominate the world.

    The desire to dominate the world is not unique to fascism or Islamism.

  • Kat

    Hitler said he’d dominate the world, too, and cleanse it of all Jews–just like islamofascists.

  • hey

    Why do we use islamofascist? It’s an easy shorthand to describe various groups and individuals who desire a totalitariam islamist state or empire denoted as the caliphate (typical goal is a worldwide caliphate, although some will go for a lesser end. Osama Bin Laden only wants all of historical Islam, including Spain, East Timor, and the Phillippines). Is it strictly fascist? If it is modeled on the Iranian state, yes. There is a fusion between the church and the state, expansionist aims, control over minute details of daily life, absorption of the economy into the state with a veneer of private ownership and the enrichment of the families of senior leadership.

    In fact there are several actual fascist countries in the world, funnily enough most of them are supposedly communist. PRC, DPRK, Cuba, Vietnam, Burma and Iran all qualify as fascist. They are fairly close approximations to the policies of Italy, Spain, and Germany circa WWII. Most even have some ethnic repression and colonisation in process (China v Tibet and Xinjiang, Burma against Shan and other minorities, Iran against all non-persians who make up 49% of the population). Just some fun facts for those who deny that Islamists could be fascists.

    As to genocidal jihads…. there are rather a lot to choose from, even solely in Indonesia. There’s Ambon, Aceh, Moluccas, and the desire to retake East Timor. There’s also genocidal jihads in south Thailand, 2 in the Phillippines, Kashmir, various jihads in Pakistan, many in Bangladesh, Nigeria, Niger, Chad, Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Western Sahara…

    Inayat Bunglawala’s got an interesting past. He works at Reuters, and after LGF highlighted his statements to discredit his postings at Comment is Free a Reuters employee sent death threats to Charles Johnston and Reuters suspended an employee. There has been no confirmation that it was in fact Bunglawala, but the timing is interesting to say the least. For more info on Bunglawala, see http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20760_A_Death_Threat_from_Reuters_(Bumped)&only

  • http://www.oxfordalliance.blogspot.com Tom

    Kat writes: Hitler said he’d dominate the world, too, and cleanse it of all Jews–just like islamofascists.

    So did the Marxists in the USSR. Your point?

  • http://www.oxfordalliance.blogspot.com Tom

    hey writes: Why do we use islamofascist? It’s an easy shorthand . . .

    When one watches some tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the familiar phrases — bestial atrocities, iron heel, bloodstained tyranny, free peoples of the world, stand shoulder to shoulder — one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy . . . A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance toward turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself.
    George Orwell

  • Kat

    I choose islamofascist for myself because it fits these caliphate seeking murderers.

  • Ronnie in New Orleans

    Well if Winston Churchill, who could hardly be called a neophyte at the English language, could call the Germans “Huns” (show me the proof of that relationship), then I’ll use the term “islamofascist” without fear of destroying either the language or liberal democracy, whatever the hell that is.

    If that offends the sensibilities or hurts the feelings of some folks, feel constitutionally protected in your right to have your beliefs laughed at and your feelings hurt.

    Otherwise don’t expect me to care.

  • http://www.oxfordalliance.blogspot.com Tom

    Ronnie writes: if Winston Churchill, who could hardly be called a neophyte at the English language, could call the Germans “Huns” (show me the proof of that relationship), then I’ll use the term “islamofascist” without fear of destroying either the language or liberal democracy, whatever the hell that is.

    If that offends the sensibilities or hurts the feelings of some folks, feel constitutionally protected in your right to have your beliefs laughed at and your feelings hurt.

    Otherwise don’t expect me to care.

    Ronnie, the difference is this: Churchill coined meaningful new phrases rather than parroting meaningless cliches. (His language revealed the majesty of his mind.) In contrast, mediocre minds revel in hackneyed expressions (e.g. Islamofascism).

  • Kat

    Well, then I will revert to my original–muslamic gutblowers.

  • Ronnie in New Orleans

    “Hun” is a meaningful new phrase??? it’s not even a phrase, it’s a three letter word. At least he could have filled out his “phrase” by going to four letters.

    And he was parroting a meaningless cliche… since you evidently don’t grasp the meaning. It’s a name used to describe German troops by Kaiser Wilhelm as he sent them off to fight the Chinese in the Boxer Rebellion.

    So Churchill simply parroted a meaningless “phrase/word” and displayed his mediocre mind in using such a hackneyed expression. He used it over and over for years, in different context “Hitler and his Huns” the “Hun ship” (Bismarck would not have been amused).

    So what was the point. Historical accuracy. Nonsense. He seldom called the Huns fascists. No one knows what the hell that word means either, so why bother with it. Churchill could communicate. You just argue about English. So go dot your i’s and cross your t’s and leave descriptive terms alone. Unless you’ll contend that Winston would show more class and intelligence to drop the “Huns” and use “racially pure, Jewish oppressed victims of Versailles” instead.

  • http://www.oxfordalliance.blogspot.com Tom

    Kat writes: Well, then I will revert to my original–muslamic gutblowers.

    Kat,

    I find your phrase both original and descriptive.

    Tom

  • AndyJ

    Fascism as a middle class nationalist response to the vaccuum created following WWI applies to these new middle class supranationalist enslavers and killers.

    The war is not over. The question is whether we are at 1914 or 1933 or 1938 before the deluge….

  • http://www.oxfordalliance.blogspot.com Tom

    Ronnie writes: since you evidently don’t grasp the meaning. It’s a name used to describe German troops by Kaiser Wilhelm as he sent them off to fight the Chinese in the Boxer Rebellion.

    Ronnie,

    Actually I did know that, but Churchill coined many other phrases (e.g iron curtain). Btw, Hunship is hardly a cliched expression.

    Hey, if you think Islamofascist is clever and original, by all means use it. If you use it with referrence to the KLA, it might even have some content.

  • Ronnie in New Orleans

    Tom,

    you’re not interested in content. You have ignored, not refuted, the similarities to the “fascists” that others, not I, on this thread have pointed out.

    The point is taken however that you admit that a person may utter a “phrase” that you personally deem hackneyed and cliched and still have enough intelligence to utter other more contentful phrases. We can only hope to measure up to your esteemed standards.

    And get your credits right. An absolute scumbag named Joseph Goebbels coined “iron curtain” in the same context to describe the USSR domination of Eastern Europe in radio broadcasts in 1945. He just did it in German. Another stolen hackneyed phrase copied verbatim by the mediocre Churchill. From another German no less. He didn’t have much imagination, but evidently a good English-German dictionary.

  • chico haas

    I might accept islamofascist as an excessively inflammatory term, so long as we can add a few other similarly loaded collective nouns to the list: bible-thumpers, homophobes and that MSM staple, the arab street. Strike that. Arab street doesn’t qualify as a collective noun. It’s just one AP cab driver.

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    Fascism as a middle class nationalist response to the vaccuum created following WWI applies to these new middle class supranationalist enslavers and killers.

    The war is not over. The question is whether we are at 1914 or 1933 or 1938 before the deluge….

    Uh… we’re at neither. Germany required the combined might of the Allied Forces to break its empire. What exactly does Islam have? Nothing. On its best day it could knock down two buildings — sure, 9/11 was big on the shock and awe, but that’s a far cry from the maurading armies of the Caliphate lapping at Europe’s doorstep. Those days are long gone.

    “Islamofascism” is nothing but a nuisance to Western Civilization, a footnote to the Cold War that will barely merit mention in the annals of history when Saudi Arabia’s oil reserves run dry. To overinflate the importance of Muslim terrorists is to give these messianic morons exactly what they want.

  • http://robertdfeinman.com/society Robert Feinman

    There seems to be a common rightwing theme developing that there is a worldwide semi-organized group of Muslims who want to take over all or part of the world and create a new Islamic civilization.

    Many on the left dispute the extent of their aims. Some, like me, feel that most of the insurgencies have local objectives, regardless of how florid their speeches are.

    I’m sure I could find similar hyperbolic examples from Christian fundamentalists in the US if I spent a little time at it.

    However, lets put all this aside and assume that there is such a worldwide movement. Before we get started remember that there are about 1.6 billion Muslims in the world and that they don’t all belong to the same subdivisions. We all know about Shia and Sunni, but there are others.

    Anyway, lets assume that some how they stop trying kill each other and overcome all the differences in language and cultures and work for this unified goal.

    My question is: “What is the west supposed to do about it?” Are we supposed to have another crusade? Are we supposed to wipe out all 1.6 billion Muslims, or are we supposed to only wipe out their “leaders”? How do we know which leaders are the ones that need to be eliminated? What happens when others replace them?

    Please be specific, do we nuke whole countries or just invade certain ones? What do we do about Muslims living in non-majority Muslim countries like the US and the UK?

    OK, over to all you who support the clash of civilizations theory.

  • pst314

    “When al-Qaeda’s Panzers overrun Poland, maybe calling them “fascists” will be appropriate.”

    Funny, I didn’t realize that an obsession with Poland was one of fascism’s defining characteristics. Silly me.

    More seriously, although reasonable people can disagree about whether our theocratic enemies are precisely fascists, it certainly seems fair to regard them as fascistic. Infallible leader principle, as embodied by Mohammed the perfect man. Militant hostility toward all those not part of the in-group. A cult of hatred in which various groups are demoted to sub-human status. An eliminationist/exterminationist ideology. A program of virtually unlimited imperialism, with all others viewed as inferiors to be subjugated, exploited and enslaved, if not liquidated.

  • http://www.oxfordalliance.blogspot.com Tom

    Ronnie states: Tom, you’re not interested in content. You have ignored, not refuted, the similarities to the “fascists” that others, not I, on this thread have pointed out.

    Right you are Ronnie, I did ignore some splendid comments on the similarities between fascists and Islamists.

    Andrew Tyndall’s provides the best summation, imo:

    ‘“fascist.” Last week, President Bush used the term both to describe Hezbollah and the 24 suspects arrested in England for the alleged liquid bomb plot.

    What either group had to do with the political traditions of Benito Mussolini or Francisco Franco or even Juan Peron is beyond me. Perhaps Bush thought Sheikh Nasrallah was planning to make the trains run on time!’

    Btw, I have acknowledged that the KLA is an openly fascist Islamic terror organisation. Unfortunately, we support the KLA. Imagine that!

    . . .this Lieberman, who makes a public spectacle of his religious beliefs, who pontificates from a place higher than Morality, this Lieberman fronts for the KLA who are the self-proclaimed heirs to the Balli Kombëtar, the World War II Albanian fascists (3). This Lieberman, who flaunts his Jewishness as if it were a theme park, to the disgust of many Jews, including the writers of this article, this Lieberman fronts for the descendents of the very people who murdered nearly every Jew in Kosovo.

    But please note: since being put in power by NATO and the UN, Senator Lieberman’s beloved KLA has driven from Kosovo those Jews who managed not to be killed by the Balli Kombëtar during W.W. II, driven them out along with their descendents. That is, his KLA has completed the job of producing a judenfrei ‘KosovA.’

  • http://www.oxfordalliance.blogspot.com Tom

    Robert Feinman writes: There seems to be a common rightwing theme developing that there is a worldwide semi-organized group of Muslims who want to take over all or part of the world and create a new Islamic civilization

    Is it really a ‘rightwing’ theme?

    I am not sure right/left is very helpful in this situation. I’m conservative, but I don’t think Islam (GWB-Texas) is any more monolithic than is Marxism (LBJ-Texas). The Sufi’s seem a lot less militant than the Sunni’s and Shia’s. I am sure there are some Muslims who dream of world conquest, but I don’t think they are anywhere near a majority. Most, I’ll bet, have more limited ambitions. (For example, I have hunch that the KLA aspires to nothing more than the extermination of all Serbs and Jews in the Balkans.)

  • http://www.oxfordalliance.blogspot.com Tom

    Ronnie scolds: And get your credits right. An absolute scumbag named Joseph Goebbels coined “iron curtain” in the same context to describe the USSR domination of Eastern Europe in radio broadcasts in 1945.

    Thanks for the tip, I’ll check it out. Was it before or after April of 1945 that Goebbels coined the phrase?

  • http://www.oxfordalliance.blogspot.com Tom

    Hey Ronnie, ever hear of this guy?

    The term “The Iron Curtain” was first coined by German Chancellor Count Lutz Schwerin von Krosigk in the last days of World War II . . .
    http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Iron_Curtain

  • http://www.digitalstreetjournal.com Jonathan Trenn

    The unfortunate thing here is that this has goten to be a debate about the word fascist. I don’t like attaching the world fascist to a religion.

    I guess I don’t this of this as being fascist. I see it as a new type of totalitarianism. Some want world domination. Some want regional domination. It is a new hatred, one that is just as dangerous. And one that has to be stopped.

  • http://www.oxfordalliance.blogspot.com Tom

    Harold Evans states:he civil rights lobbies are working from a passé play book. They are blind to the lethal nature of the new Salafist totalitarianism. They won’t recognize that we are facing an irrationalist movement immune to compromise and dedicated to achieve its ends of controlling every aspect of daily life, every process of the mind, through indiscriminate mass slaughter.

    Perhaps the civil rights lobbies are blind to the nature of Salafist totalitarianism, but they are not blind to what it takes to create a police state. Our civil liberties (Bill of Rights) exist in part to inconvenience those who would create a totalitarian police state. I know the Nazi’s were big on ID cards. I’m not.

    Evans seems to think we must choose between a police state and an Islamic state. There is one more option, we can stick with what we have.

  • Ronnie in New Orleans

    Tom

    It was during his radio broadcasts as the Russians closed in on Berlin in early ’45. He still had the ridiculous notion that the US and Britain would see domination of Eastern Europe by the USSR as unacceptable and would offer Germany terms if they resisted long enough. Nobody ever claimed he was sane.

  • Kat

    The particular religion in question is not just their religion–it is their political system. It is their way of life. The Koran dictates their way of life and calls for all non believers to be killed, converted or dhimminized. Allah won’t be happy unless the caliphate is established.

  • Ronnie in New Orleans

    Tom

    From your link

    The term “The Iron Curtain” was first coined by German Chancellor Count Lutz Schwerin von Krosigk in the last days of World War II

    which he had picked up from Joseph Goebbels anti-Soviet speeches,

    however its use was popularized by the former British leader Winston Churchill, who used it in a long speech on March 5, 1946:

    (it would be surprising if Goebbels had popularized it in March 46 since he’d been dead about a year. And still is according to Wikipedia.)

    That’s Wikipedia. How was Lutzie the first to coin it when he got it from Gutter Joe? Was it “coined” on a limited edition mark or something? Guess it’s still not Britannica eh. Cheap labor….

  • Ronnie in New Orleans

    Robert:

    “rightwing”

    cliched, hackneyed, biased

    sign of a mediocre intellect.

    Ask Tom.

    And what answer would you have gotten from FDR after Pearl Harbor when you asked him how he would beat the Japanese on Dec 8, 1941.

    “Well we’ll luck out at Midway, take a bunch of islands, survive the suicide bombers and then A-bomb em.”

    Then everyone would be on the same page.

    Get real… being in a war does not mean you know exactly how to win it. You just start by winning the next fight. Both world and bar room domination is tough if you can’t win the fights.

    Why don’t you tell us what you’d do?

  • Pingback: Escapable Logic » Blog Archive » Other Barbarians at Another Gate

  • http://www.oxfordalliance.blogspot.com Tom

    Ronnie writes: (it would be surprising if Goebbels had popularized it in March 46 since he’d been dead about a year. And still is according to Wikipedia.)

    That’s Wikipedia. How was Lutzie the first to coin it when he got it from Gutter Joe? Was it “coined” on a limited edition mark or something? Guess it’s still not Britannica eh. Cheap labor….

    Ronnie, It looks like we agree on a couple of points: 1. Wikipedia isn’t entirely reliable. (Incidentally, the link isn’t, as you assert, to Wikipedia); 2 Goebbels is still dead.

    The original point is about ‘fascism’ not Churchill or Goebbels. It’s that, ‘The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable.’ You’ve claimed that I, ‘have ignored, not refuted, the similarities to the “fascists” that others, not I, on this thread have pointed out.’

    I did pay homage to Andrew Tydall. Which excellent comments would you suggest I read again?

  • http://www.oxfordalliance.blogspot.com Tom

    Ronnie:Robert:

    “rightwing”

    cliched, hackneyed, biased

    sign of a mediocre intellect.

    Ask Tom.

    Ronnie,

    Thanks for the credit, but I can’t accept. I have suggested that cliche packed political discourse is the sign of mediocre intellect, but the ‘rightwing’ bit is yours.

    Rightwingers Edmund Burke, Sir Karl Popper, and F. Hayek all managed to express themselves without excessive parroting of cliches.

    Tom

  • http://www.oxfordalliance.blogspot.com Tom

    Ronnie writes: Get real… being in a war does not mean you know exactly how to win it. You just start by winning the next fight. Both world and bar room domination is tough if you can’t win the fights.

    Is the the WOT an effort to dominate the world? Or, a fight against terrorist organisations?

    There might be some folks in the world willing to fight AQ that don’t want to be dominated by the US or UK. If there are, they might be more enthusiastic allies if we keep the plan to dominate the world a secret.

  • http://robertdfeinman.com/society Robert Feinman

    This thread is getting a bit long in the tooth, however.

    1. I don’t think rightwing is any more pejorative than leftwing. It is short hand (or stereotype, if you prefer) for a broad set of beliefs or attitudes. I don’t think it is mis-stating things to say that, in general, rightwingers supported the war in Iraq while leftwingers less so.

    Get real… being in a war does not mean you know exactly how to win it. You just start by winning the next fight. Both world and bar room domination is tough if you can’t win the fights.

    2. Sorry, that is exactly my point. Those worried about Islamic agression (is that neutral enough?) claim that bringing freedom and democracy to these states will solve the problems. That’s fine, everyone is in favor of freedom and democracy. But you can’t promote an explicit military approach without a military plan. So it is incumbent on those who favor a military approach to explain their plan. Failure to have a plan (or to have an unworkable one) is how nations get into “quagmires”.

    I renew my challenge. What is the plan?

  • Ronnie in New Orleans

    Did I use “leftwing” ???

    Michael…. you used ‘rightwing’ it in a perjorative context and your meaning was clear. The old clunker of making up a list of problems and asking for a universal solution is nonsense. Drop the psuedo intellectual BS. And I didn’t say that I wanted “world domination” for the US. You just grabbed that out of context and satisfied some of your own pre-conceived notions about ‘rightwing’ intentions. Am I ‘rightwing’? How would you know? Who would want stewardship of all those assholes anyway?

    So I renew my challenge. What’s your plan? Bend over? Convert? Depends on how you define the problem, and your hypothetical laundry list does not do that very well.

    And here’s some news. Everyone is not in favor of freedom and democracy. Not from the beginning of recorded history to the present, and that’s been awhile. Where have you been?

    Tom .. you still didn’t answer how Lutsie could have been the originator of the phrase when the article you referred said he got it from Goebbel’s radio broadcasts. At least that’s what I expect was meant by ‘coined.’ Maybe he was the first to say it in English, though I would argue that shiesse is still shit. Maybe radio broadcasts don’t count for phrases. I don’t have the handbook on credited phraseology but I figured if you said it first then you, well, said it first. Silly me. Of course if you agree to reference.com’s train of logic in this case continue on your merry way. This would also mean that Winston copied a third hand hackneyed phrase. What a dullard?

    My sincere apologies to Wikipedia for crediting that piece of shiesse to them. I should have realized it was too well written.

    ps: how smart could Lutzie be anyway. When the new Fuhrer Donitz asks who wants to succeed Hitler and Goebbels in April 45 do you hold up your hand? Bet he wasn’t a Nazi either.

  • http://www.oxfordalliance.blogspot.com Tom

    Ronnie writes: . . . how smart could Lutzie be anyway. When the new Fuhrer Donitz asks who wants to succeed Hitler and Goebbels in April 45 do you hold up your hand?

    It would not have been the career choice I would have recommended.

    With regard to the’iron curtain’ credit, there seem to be more than a few sites that give ‘Lutzie’ the credit. It really doesn’t matter to me if he deserves the credit or not. It seems settled that Churchill stole the phrase, but I don’t think he stole it because he thought it cliched (in English).

    However, fascism as an emotive term applied to political/religious movements that are not fascist is hackneyed.