The Big Lie About 'Islamic Fascism'
sliverstain
Posts: 340
The Big Lie About 'Islamic Fascism'
By Eric Margolis
08/29/06 "Lew Rockwell" -- -- The latest big lie unveiled by Washington’s neoconservatives are the poisonous terms, "Islamo-Fascists" and "Islamic Fascists." They are the new, hot buzzwords among America’s far right and Christian fundamentalists.
President George W. Bush made a point last week of using "Islamofacists" when recently speaking of Hezbullah and Hamas – both, by the way, democratically elected parties. A Canadian government minister from the Conservative Party compared Lebanon’s Hezbullah to Nazi Germany.
The term "Islamofascist" is utterly without meaning, but packed with emotional explosives. It is a propaganda creation worthy Dr. Goebbles, and the latest expression of the big lie technique being used by neocons in Washington’s propaganda war against its enemies in the Muslim World.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14743.htm
By Eric Margolis
08/29/06 "Lew Rockwell" -- -- The latest big lie unveiled by Washington’s neoconservatives are the poisonous terms, "Islamo-Fascists" and "Islamic Fascists." They are the new, hot buzzwords among America’s far right and Christian fundamentalists.
President George W. Bush made a point last week of using "Islamofacists" when recently speaking of Hezbullah and Hamas – both, by the way, democratically elected parties. A Canadian government minister from the Conservative Party compared Lebanon’s Hezbullah to Nazi Germany.
The term "Islamofascist" is utterly without meaning, but packed with emotional explosives. It is a propaganda creation worthy Dr. Goebbles, and the latest expression of the big lie technique being used by neocons in Washington’s propaganda war against its enemies in the Muslim World.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14743.htm
The world's greatest empires progress through this sequence:From bondage to spiritual faith; spiritual faith to great courage; courage to liberty;liberty to abundance;abundance to selfishness; selfishness to complacency;complacency to apathy;apathy to dependence;dependency back again into bondage
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Judging from the stated goals of Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Queda, Islamic Jihad, the Taliban, etc... this is what they want. To establish an Islamic Caliphate that has no outside intervention.
The Taliban was clearly a Facist, Islamic state - until the U.S. overthrew them in Afghanistan. Iran is the same way. They control or attempt to control what their population can say, wear, when and where they can congregate, sexual preference, what music they listen to and what religeon they follow.
I don't understand why the name "Islamic Fasict" is incorrect or misleading. I find it to be very accurate.
He had a super write up about being on a highjacked airplane back in the late 70's I do believe and they were threatening to slam it into NYC back then. Amazing how everybody living under a rock or in this case Canada seems to think the threat of doing that has never been there until Sept. 11. Sell the people what you want them to believe and you have people who only will relent to one side of the story. As seen in here.
JUST Islam?
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the
growth of private power to the point where it becomes stronger than
the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism —
ownership of government by an individual, by a group or any
controlling private power.":
President Franklin D. Roosevelt
Those in the US, you know, the ones who actually maim and murder thousands, millions in the name of 'democracy', do it in the name of Christianity and God.
How many have died at the hands of this Islamic Fascism you speak of, and how many of the Christian / Zionist Fascism that has the White House in it's grip?
yeah, thats what happens. LOL
"President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"
Yeah, he sure did do it...
That's exactly what happens....
Bush said to James Robinson: 'I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.'
In another incident, Mansfield recounts how, on Palm Sunday last year, Bush was flying back from El Salvador aboard the presidential jet Air Force One and seemed to be destined to miss church.
However, knowing that Bush hated to miss a service, some officials suggested they worship in the air. Bush agreed, and soon 40 officials were crammed into the plane's conference room. The service was led by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, while the lesson was read by close Bush aide Karen Hughes.
Of course, I think the point you missed is, people are using God as an excuse to kill. Both sides.
you can pray for whoever you want to, whenever you want to. just don't force your religion on others.
They can all be criticized, but coining various as "fascist" for the emotional underpinnings of the word, is misleading. If by fascism is understood 1930s-1940s Germany and Italy.
The extremist global terrorists are in no way nationalistic. They have the charismatic leadership and a religious underpinning, with a focus on "traditional" values. However, they have in no way the control and national grandiosity and support as fascism appeared before WW2. There are other nationalistic groups of course, that lack some of the other elements. But I feel watering down terms serves nobody. Overusing a word, debases it, and makes it loose it's edge. Anti-semittism is being drained currently, as is terrorist. The more you expand those categories, the less meaningful they become. If anyone criticizing Israeli official policy are anti-semites, well then anti-semittism isn't that bad, for instance.
If you want to say Islamic authoritarian extremist fuckers, then say so. Fascist isn't the right adjective. Something being wrong and oppressive in our view isn't automatically fascist. And I don't feel labelling the US as fascist is right either, even if some parallells are drawn.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I must have missed the Christians and Jews calling for killing in the name of their God (in these modern conflicts that is). Bush keeps saying it is for security, Israel said it was for security. Now, I dont agree with Bush or the Iraq war, and I do believe it is for different reasons than just security, but the war was sold to the public based on security, not religion. And the same pretty much applies with regards to the Israel-Hezbollah situation. Again, I dont agree with these wars, but they werent started because of religion, and religion isnt the public reason that has been given. And yes, you can find Robertson and a few nutjobs who make ridiculous claims based on religion, but, they didnt start the wars, and they dont have a real big public influence anymore.
But you have a point. However, I would posit that the only reason Bush isn't using the religious angle as his predominant reason is because the overall U.S. population wouldn't have it. If this country had a religious nut majority (instead of just being lousy with them), then you'd have seen that reason floating around a lot more.
Of course, my main reason for bringing it up was as a counter point to the "what's wrong with believing in God" post. I don't mean to single out monkey spanker (I'm not sure if he usually fits the mold), but there have been a lot of posts here and on other message boards where a question like "what's wrong with believing in God" actually means "what's wrong with believing in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." People often talk about the overwhelming influence Christianity has over their lives - which is fine by me, so long as they push it on me - yet they just as often refuse to acknowledge that other religions same effect on other people (unless it's to say how crazy they are - in which case, they're no different than the secular left). And, that Christianity can have the same effect on people that Islam is having on the fundamentalists of the region today. Our comfortable position in the world is just about the only reason it hasn't reached a wider audience, in my opinion.
I understand your point. And agree that Christianity can have the same effect that Islam has on fundamentalists, but in todays world, it doesnt have the same effect. ANd I do disagree about our comfortable position being the reason is hasnt reached a wider audience. Obviously, just an opinion on both our parts, but I think many ME countries are run and governed on brainwashing, and I think that is what causes radical Islam. I think in our culture makes it much easier to become independent of a religion, which in turns doesnt lead to radical versions of our religions.
Bingo ...
They would be the "world-domination" type of nation, uber-worldwide kinda nation -- the Caliphate I believe? They're looking at a "nation" that doesn't quite exist right now....
Fascism = rigid one-party control = check
Fascism = forcible suppression of opposition = check
Fascism = private enterprise under centralized govt control = check
Fascism = beligerent nationalsim = again, looking past "nation", check, they're mighty beligerent
Fascism = racism = check
Fascism = militarism = check
a political party based on all the above = check
And then, I liked this one:
Hezbullah and Hamas – both, by the way, democratically elected parties
More accureate to say members of these parties have been democratically elected to a national government -- but to call Hezbollah/Nasarralah democratically elected, nope. The leadership of Hamas and Hez couldn't be further from democracy. The makeup of these two groups are diametrically oppossed to democracy, but fun to see them come out and play with their homies!
Now, where was I? Oh, yeah. There is a movement in this country, one that's strong enough to get the ear of the president (and some say won him the office) that want nothing more than to make it harder and harder to be independent of their view of Christianity. It's not too hard for me to imagine, through either an economic collapse or perhaps the last death knell of democracy, that these people could take a much stronger position over larger populations. However, hope - and a general lack of bombs going off everywhere - keeps most people from turning to religion in that way.
One only needs to look at what George H. W. Bush once said in an interview to see that the differences in fundamentalist belief are not really all that different:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." - George H. W. Bush in a 1987 interview.
Ehm, they are democratically elected by any definition. You can't take that away from them. Participation in relatively clean elections winning seats. That they may not be dedicated democratic at heart is one thing, but they are democratically elected. Like it or not.
I'm not defending these wackos, just pointing out that fascist is a wrong description, and one used to score some easy points on our negative associations with fascism in the west. They are authoritarian, fanatic and traditionalist and with a healthy does of xenophobia. But fascist is a wrong adjective.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Let me first address the issue of Christianity in America. I agree Bush pandered to voters by using religion, but he used things like gay marriage, which I am certainly not against gay marriage, but being against gay marriage isnt on the same level as Saudi Arabia's Wahabi schools, for example.
Our religious extremists, picked out the gay teletubby. The reaction by our citizens was that Falwell (or whoever it was) was a lunatic. There clerics made a fuss over cartoons to the point of encouraging rioting, in which a few people were killed and many hurt. As goofy as the teletubby thing is, its not on par with rioting over a cartoon.
This country once had strongly held beliefs as well. But we are a much more open society, which like I said earlier, allows for a lot more independence with regards to your religious beliefs. In other words, there is a religious aspect to our society, but it isnt forced on us, and it is no where near as prevelent as in most ME countries. We dont have anywhere near the same level of brainwashing as most ME countries do, and yes, when a country wraps a religion into almost every aspect of society, then I consider it brainwashing.
I see where you are coming from, but just becuase we have a bad administration does not change the fundamental nature of our country. We were founded upon the ideals of freedom and liberty, regardless of whose in the White House. Our congress voted for the war, so you can't blame that on Bush and claim that God is what our country is fighting for now.
It's one thing to have a government that puts "In god we trust" on the money or in the pledge of alleigance, or makes you swear to God in a court, doesn't appropriate money for stem cell research, outlaws sodomy and won't let homosexuals get married....
But it something ENTIRELY different to have a government hang homosexuals and adulters, whip and beat women who don't cover their bodies or show too much skin, outlaw all reglieons besides Islam, behead "infidels", sanction female genital mutilation, ban certain music/words.....
In fact, it's just insane that people talk about Bush being the "Hitler" and the worlds most dangerous man - when he opposes regimes that govern in the above-mentioned way.
Some people would have you think we're trying to nuke Switzerland or something... but he is just trying to check the influence of regimes like Iran and Syria.
Is he going about it the right way? Mostly no. Is he a jack-ass? Mostly yes...
But to promote such views that WE are the fascist and Bush is Hitler is just reprehensible....
Um, I think the "clean" elections thing is open to debate. Anyhow, other than that, you're right. You're right, but I'd add that while we cannot argue that they did not use democratic processes, these people should not be permitted to hide behind this as some sort of excuse for their toxic ideology. I mean, the Nazis in the 1930s used a semblence of a democratic process to obtain power initially. Pointing out that these people were democratically elected doesn't really ... I don't know ... Help solve the problem, if that makes sense?
that's why spreading democracy is not a solution... in my opinion it's a mistake. Democracy must be taken, not given. Iran is a democracy that violates Human rights, human rights respect should be what we try to spread.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Indeed. It backfires.
They have a few members democratically elected to the Lebanese government, but, Hezbollah is really more of a state within a state. The Hizbollah army, or milita, or whatever you want to call it, does not act within the boundaries of the Lebanese governemnt, they act on their own accord more or less, through power supplied to them through Syria and Iran, not Lebanon.
True. But from the reports I've heard about elections in both the occupied territories and Lebanon were fairly clean. And of course democratically elected does not mean democratic of spirit of course. Still I'd rather have them bickering in parliament than the alternative.
That's Hizbollah, yes. And there are problems having them brought under lebanese control, obviously. But the events that occurred did little to harm them and more to gain for them.
In any case, Hizbollah has little to do with "global terrorism" in any way, as they are sticking to the one (arguably legitimate) conflict with Israel over disputed lands. They may be stalling and prolonging conflict to their own needs of course, but is in no way anything like Al Quaeda and it's ilk. Same for Hamas, which is exclusively about fighting Israel. Those are guerillas and political parties, sure, engaged in a defined conflict in a specific area. And has little in common with the global terrorists.
I dont like them, but they are not fascists.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
It's our society that keeps the religious fundamentalists down - and when politicians take up the torch for these fundamentalists, it bothers me. Because, as I see it, there is no inherent superiority to be found in Christianity over Islam. Given the right circumstances, it can be just as nasty. And there are many people living in this country that want it to be.
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that each of these was the end all -- each of these are components of facism, and yep, of other systems too. Was just easier to check each off by breaking them out of the total definition, look at each component seperately.