RSS 2.0 FeedRon Paul And Islamofascism
by Doug MataconisOver at RealClear Politics, Tom Bevan takes Ron Paul to task for his recent statements about people who use the term “islamofacsism”:
In the spin room after the Republican debate on Tuesday evening in Dearborn, Mich., a reporter from the Arab-American News asked Ron Paul what he thought of the term “Islamic fascism.”
“It’s a false term to make people think we’re fighting Hitler,” Paul responded. “It’s war propaganda designed to generate fear so that the war has to be spread.”
Now, when Paul asserts that the war in Iraq is a mistake that is bankrupting America, he’s making a serious argument which current polls suggest a majority of Americans agree with — though not most Republicans. When he says 9/11 was the result of “blowback” from decades of U.S. foreign policy abroad, he’s on somewhat more precarious ground, but at least there is still some shred of intellectual basis for his view — albeit a Chomskyite one.
But when Paul says that the term “Islamic fascism” (or, for the purpose of discussion, its synonymous twin, “Islamofascism”) is propaganda designed to spread war, he’s veered off into the sort of paranoid fringe kookiness that keeps his campaign relegated to a side-show novelty act
(…)
For Paul to ridicule the term “Islamofascist” as propaganda and to insinuate that anyone who uses it is a warmonger seeking to spread conflict in the Middle East shows how wildly out of touch he is with the vast majority of the American public. More to the point, Paul’s willingness to so severely downplay the threat posed to America by Islamic fundamentalists calls into question his fitness to fulfill the constitutional duty of the Commander in Chief to protect the country from all threats, foreign and domestic.
The closing paragraph, I think, is completely over the top. The reception that Paul’s outspoken views on the War in Iraq and the possibility of war with Iran have gotten demonstrates quite clearly that he is not as far out of the mainstream. The American people have turned against the Iraq War in overwhelming numbers and, largely because of the experience in Iraq, are not at all enthusiastic about the idea of taking on Tehran anytime soon.
Nonetheless, Bevan does have a point when he criticizes the Congressman’s dismissal of those of us who believe that radical Islam is a threat and a danger and, fundamentally, anti-libertarian is entirely correct.
Take a look at any nation where radical or Wahabbist Islam has taken hold and you will find a complete lack of liberty. Women, of course, are treated as second-class citizens, but it doesn’t stop there. Freedom of religion is a concept that doesn’t exist. Freedom of speech ? Forget about speaking out against the government, and heaven help you if you dare criticize Mohammed.
But it’s not just in the Middle East that we’re seeing this happen. The Mohammed Cartoons controversy was, by and large, a European phenomenon. Theo Van Gogh was murdered on a street in Amsterdam for daring to make a film about the state of women in Islamic societies. And Osama bin Laden has said that the only way for the West to save itself from further attack is to convert to Islam.
This is not the ideology of a peace-loving people. It’s the ideology of fascists. Hence, the term Islamofascism, coined, by the way, by a leftist named Christopher Hitchens, not a neoconservative.
At The Crossed Pond, Rojas makes this point in addressing Bevan’s argument:
I have argued time and time again that my fellow Paul supporters need to stop treating their political opponents as if they were troglodytes motivated solely by malice. I never thought I would have to say the same thing to the candidate himself. But really, Dr. Paul: there are people who detest the brutality of orthodox Islamic regimes, and who express that sentiment, who don’t necessarily want to drop bombs on them. Me, for one.
So let’s stop lobbing accusations about “newspeak” on matters of this sort. It’s my strong belief that many of the people who use the term “Islamofascism” are among the strongest potential supporters of a Paul candidacy. Let’s bring them in instead of driving them away.
And driving them away is precisely what seems to be happening. Instead of recognizing the opposition to Islamic radicalism for what it is — an opposition to an ideology fundamentally opposed to human freedom — there seems to be a tendency from the Paul campaign to believe the leftist/paleo-libertarian idea that the Islamists would leave us alone if we just withdrew from the Middle East completely and stood by and did nothing while they overran Israel and any moderate Arab nation that dared stand in their way with every suicide bomber they could find.
Not everyone who believes that Islamic radicalism is a threat to human freedom wants to invade Iran tomorrow, so maybe it’s time to stop claiming that they do.
http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2007/10/the_rise_of_the_clueless_neoco.html
Comment by Tex MacRae — October 13, 2007 @ 12:49 pmActually, Doug, Hitchens is a largely a neo-conservative…mainly because neo-conservatism has so much common ground with communism and socialism (it was founded by ex-communists after all). Why do you think Bush adopted Hitchens’ phrase?
And Islamo-fascism is a fabrication. It’s a bumper sticker slogan meant to break down a complex conflict into a simple term that would resound with the average voter. It’s also simplistically inaccurate because it creates the impression of one overall movement in Islam where none exists and ignores very real rifts within Islamic society. The examples you cite are interconnected only through the most general of groupings. The people involved all happened to be “Muslim” but they were not actively colluding with each other and in many cases they have interests that are diametrically opposed to each other.
You seem to tout judging people as individuals as something to aspire to and something that will work for society, but you’re very willing to abandon that position once individualism runs into a perceived setback or whenever departing from it benefits your own collective group. Perhaps Ron Paul’s not the one who’s naive and philosophically confused on foreign policy here.
Comment by UCrawford — October 13, 2007 @ 1:03 pmAnd I don’t believe that most people who accept collectivism in U.S. foreign policy are operating out of malice…I believe that most of them are operating out of fear, and cowardice, and ignorance, and xenophobia, and laziness, and stupidity. I’d probably have more respect for them if they were simply malicious.
Comment by UCrawford — October 13, 2007 @ 1:07 pmWhat collective group ?
I’m talking about opposing an ideology that is fundamentally anti-liberty. It’s no different from opposing Nazism in the 1930s or Communism in the 1950s. We can debate on what the appropriate response is to that ideology, but I don’t see what’s wrong with libertarians recognizing that there are forces outside the United States Government that pose a threat to individual liberty.
And I’m not sure where you’re coming from on the other point. Are you saying that there’s no connection between the ideology behind the people who went insane over a few cartoons in a newspaper, a man who admitted that he killed Van Gogh because he dared insult Islam, and the idea that the West must convert to Islam to save itself ?
Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 13, 2007 @ 1:09 pm“Not everyone who believes that Islamic radicalism is a threat to human freedom wants to invade Iran tomorrow, so maybe it’s time to stop claiming that they do.”
no but people who use obviously divisive wordings like ‘islamo fascists’ are not the same people who think that islam is squashing human freedoms. The people who use this terminology largely think that somehow islam will invade the west and force women here to wear Burkas. Dont believe me? Ask some of the neo-con talking heads yourself, they actually believe somehow that muslims pose a threat to American freedom, which imo is a different view entirely from what you describe.
Comment by robbie — October 13, 2007 @ 1:12 pmi wanted to say a few more words… im extremely happy somone like Paul has the courage to stand up and cut through the propaganda and debate framing that the neo-cons have set into play. It is not logical or rational to accept that type of manipulative labeling. Do we call people who run the ADL jewish fascists? OR abortion bombers christian fascists? No! because their actions alone are bad enough, we don’t need to ‘butter them up’ with inflammatory wording to prove our points.
Comment by robbie — October 13, 2007 @ 1:15 pmBeen to Europe lately?
Comment by Kevin — October 13, 2007 @ 1:25 pmi don’t think there’s a dangerous arab under my bed or everywhere i go, hiding behind a corner waiting to plant a bomb.
i don’t believe in the conspiracy theory that if the United States spends as much wealth it’s already spent on the GWOT, that it will solve any problem. or that it won’t cripple the United States and my personal way of life.
i don’t believe that projecting a police state on foreign nations is speaking for me.
Comment by oilnwater — October 13, 2007 @ 1:27 pmDoug,
From what I can see, your collective group is your interpretation of the United States. You’re perfectly willing to champion freedom and liberty and national sovereignty as long as it’s either within the borders of the U.S. or doesn’t in some way threaten our primacy in the world. But when it comes to respecting the national sovereignty of a country that didn’t attack us (Iraq), or a country that is merely acting in its own self-interest (Iran), you’re perfectly willing to throw the freedom and liberty argument out the window and rally behind our government’s effort to force our will on them. Did it ever occur to you that most Muslims are Muslims because they chose to be that and not because they were forced to convert? Did it ever occur to you that many of the unfree conditions in the Middle East can be directly attributed to a century of violently coercive Western colonialism and intervention? Did it ever occur to you that they may not want Western-style freedom? Did it ever occur to you that the foreign policy you’re championing is based on the premise that people of other cultures are too stupid and weak to figure out things for themselves and establish societies that suit them? How is that about individual freedom and liberty?
As for the examples, I’m saying there was no direct correlation other than that they were Muslim. Van Gogh was assassinated by a man who was mentally unstable. The Mohammed protests were orchestrated by Middle Eastern government to rally support for themselves…it’s the Middle East equivalent of gay marriage or abortion or Terry Schiavo, an issue meant to rile the masses and provoke a response. Bin Laden is a separatist at war with governments in the Middle East. These groups are not working together and often they’re at war with each other. We get caught up in it because we’re involved over there interfering.
And the difference between the Islamists and Germany/the Soviet Union are that Islam doesn’t have an industrial base or cohesive will sufficient to destroy our way of life. And they never will. If Iran gets a nuke, or even a dozen, what do you think is actually going to happen? Do you think in a few years we’ll have Iranian tanks rolling down MainStreet USA and everybody will be forced to bow to Mecca? Their socialist economies will collapse before they can ever develop the capability to threaten our existence.
Comment by UCrawford — October 13, 2007 @ 1:28 pmRobbie,
Excellent points.
Comment by UCrawford — October 13, 2007 @ 1:30 pmKevin,
I lived in Europe until last year. Many of the problems on the mainland stem from institutionalized discrimination against Muslims. In Britain, where I lived, Islam generally blended in pretty well with mainstream society (I lived close to a large Muslim community) until we went into Iraq. That’s when the problems started.
Comment by UCrawford — October 13, 2007 @ 1:33 pmRadicalize Islamists to fight the Soviets, install the Shah in 1953 radicalizing Iranians, give Sadaam weapons to fight Iran? Seems to be a pattern of making radicals for us, plain for all but the most obtuse to see. I have an idea, lets try cooperation with CUBA, a non threatening neighbor for the next ten years and see how the experiment works? Now do not tell me Neocons you fear the mighty Cuban military? Just try it, if you can trade openly and invest in China which is at both ends of the Panama Canal in a strategic military position with your blessing you can certainly try it with CUBA.
Comment by johnnyb — October 13, 2007 @ 1:47 pmDoug,
I’ve got to go to a wedding, so I’ll leave you with this. The entire attitude of interventionism can be summed up by Henry Kissinger’s quote on Chile after they elected Allende:
“The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves. I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people.”
And the remarks of the U.S. Ambassador to Chile shortly afterwards”
“Not a nut or bolt shall reach Chile under Allende. Once Allende comes to power we shall do all within our power to condemn Chile and all Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty”
That is the ideological basis for why our government interferes in other countries’ affairs, and it’s the same rationale for what we’re doing in the Middle East if you only substitute the word “communist” for “Islamo-fascist”. It’s the idea that unprovoked aggression is right whenever it suits our government’s needs and wrong when it doesn’t. That’s blatant hypocrisy and it’s completely incompatible with freedom or liberty of any stripe and right now Ron Paul’s the only candidate in the race who’s caught onto that. Blast him if you want Doug, but the attacks on his alleged naivete are bullshit. As far as I’m concerned, he’s the only sane man running for President right now.
Comment by UCrawford — October 13, 2007 @ 1:57 pmDoug,
While I share your desire to hear Paul more strongly condmen the oppressive and aggresive policies of the Islamic extremists, I think his objection to the word fascist is appropriate.
The term fascist is mostly used as invective by people who have little or no understanding of the nature of fascism, as realized in Mussolini’s Italy. Paul, being economically minded and knowledgable, recognizes that “fascist” describes an economic system that intertwines government and large corporations to control the society. among other things.
There might be a case for Iran being fascist in the classic sense, but no one is making it. They are simply using the word fascist to mean “bad”. It is the same trick the left has pulled for many years. Paul is right to call it propoganda.
John
Comment by John — October 13, 2007 @ 2:01 pm“…coined, by the way, by a leftist named Christopher Hitchens, not a neoconservative.”
Neocons ARE leftists. Their ideology is the ideology of permanent revolution, it’s leftist utopianism with a lot of conservative-sounding rhetoric.
The neocon ideology is one of interventionism. I would remind you that the islamist movement that is such a problem today was intentionally stoked, supported, and grown by the U.S. government as a way to destabilize the Soviet Union (because many of their satellite states were/are Muslim).
You say of Islamic fundamentalists, “This is not the ideology of a peace-loving people.”
You are right, but reread the previous paragraph. We (our government) pushed that ideology as a weapon of war against the Soviets, and now we’re experiencing the blowback.
Dr. Paul does not say that these radicals are not a threat. He merely points out the history that our foreign policy has played (and continues to play) in growing the Islamist movement, and suggests that our current course is counter-productive.
I would also point out that the ideology of the militant utopianists (neocons) is also not an ideology of peace, as they seek not only endless war abroad, but are working just as hard to undermine our liberties at home – and I definitely view an attack on my liberty as an act of violence.
Ron Paul believes (as I do) that the Islamist threat can be reduced significantly ,over time, with a non-interventionist foreign policy, while continuous interventionism will cause the threat to be with us always. Of course, the “forever war” is exactly what the necons want – and Iran is definitely next on their target list.
Comment by John Purdue — October 13, 2007 @ 2:13 pmFacisim is NOT the word…. A facist ceeds power to corporate entities…
THAT FITS THE U.S.
Not the Muslims…
I agree THERE IS MUSLIM EXTREMIST… but that is different than Facist.. and those extreme muslims want to control what happens IN THEIR COUNTRIES… NOT AMERICA..
While I WISH the World was PERFECT… I want to work on AMERICA FIRST..
Worry about the Log in your own eye bro.. before worrying about the spec in your brothers eye
Comment by atvdude — October 13, 2007 @ 4:10 pm“Islamo-fascism” today is not significantly different than Christianity a few hundred years ago.
Comment by Luther — October 13, 2007 @ 4:29 pmWhen he says 9/11 was the result of “blowback” from decades of U.S. foreign policy abroad, he’s on somewhat more precarious ground, but at least there is still some shred of intellectual basis for his view — albeit a Chomskyite one.
So what if it’s a “Chomskyite” ground? Are we to refuse to believe anything because Chomsky said it?
More to the point, Paul’s willingness to so severely downplay the threat posed to America by Islamic fundamentalists calls into question his fitness to fulfill the constitutional duty of the Commander in Chief to protect the country from all threats, foreign and domestic.
Islamic fundamentalism poses little threat to me, and I dare say I was a lot closer to being killed on 9/11 than 99% of the bedwetters out there.
Comment by Joshua Holmes — October 13, 2007 @ 4:35 pm“But when Paul says that the term “Islamic fascism” (or, for the purpose of discussion, its synonymous twin, “Islamofascism”) is propaganda designed to spread war, he’s veered off into the sort of paranoid fringe kookiness that keeps his campaign relegated to a side-show novelty act”
You must be joking. Look up the definition of the word “fascism”. The term “islamo-fascism” is a sad joke. A propaganda term for slower, less educated, easily frightened people is exactly what it is. Even Bush stopped using it when he sobered up enough to realize how outright stupid the term is.
Comment by Paul — October 13, 2007 @ 4:39 pm[...] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptMore to the point, Paul’s willingness to so severely downplay the threat posed to America by Islamic fundamentalists calls into question his fitness to fulfill the constitutional duty of the Commander in Chief to protect the country … [...]
Pingback by Fitness » Ron Paul And Islamofascism — October 13, 2007 @ 4:47 pmIslamofascism is practically unknown outside of the “blogosphere” and wonky neocon pundits. It’s a bad word, undescriptive where it counts, and is used primarily to frighten, not elucidate.
Comment by rho — October 13, 2007 @ 6:37 pmI agree that “Islamofascist” is a very poor choice of words. The term “fascist” has become incredibly overused; the Left calls Bush a fascist, the Right did the same to Clinton (esp. after Ruby Ridge and Waco), fundamentalilst Islamic terrorists are now labeled with a new form of fascism. Everything we strongly dislike suddenly becomes “fascist.” The label is over-used because it is highly emotional. Say the word “fascist,” and there’s an instant correlation with Hitler and the Nazis.
Mussolini described fascism as the merger of corporations and the state.. Ayn Rand defines it as a system where the government has total power over the use and disposal of the means of production (i.e. property). Merriam-Webster’s definition stresses a strong, central state with severe economic and social regimentation. Fascism, by any definition, is a poor description of our enemy. To the contrary, Mussolini’s meaning (the merger of state and corporate power) is becoming increasingly and distressingly appropriate for America.
Furthermore, and this is really Ron Paul’s point, the usage of the term “Islamofascist” is inherently propagandistic. Hannity, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, even Boortz (whom I generally like) use this term on their radio programs, and their intent is obvious. Adding “fascist” to the description of our enemy galvanizes people; it’s an emotional word used to link our current enemies with some of the world’s most reviled movements. “Islamofascist” is not a good intellectual label. It is, however, vitriolic and used for emotional content rather than accuracy. This is why I say the term is inherently propagandistic.
Comment by Corey Cagle — October 13, 2007 @ 8:37 pmUCrawford,
Actually, problems began over there when radical clerics began to be exiled from the Middle East in the 1980s and 1990s. Some Muslims chose not to integrate into greater British society. Also, many of the problems with unemployment and lack of economic opportunities also existed in Britain for Muslims.
In a climate like this, the slightest excuse is needed to radicalize the population. The excuses happen to be the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Comment by Kevin — October 13, 2007 @ 8:47 pmJohn Purdue,
Wrong. The Saudi government stoked the Islamist movement as a way to diffuse opposition to the Saudi royal family. The Islamist movement predates the Saudi madrassas however and was started by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
The jihadists joined the Afghan freedom fighters for their own reasons.
Comment by Kevin — October 13, 2007 @ 8:55 pmatvdude,
It becomes a problem when those Muslim “extremists” hijack airliners and fly them into buildings killing 3000 people IN AMERICA.
Comment by Kevin — October 13, 2007 @ 8:57 pmSo will the same folks who are shouting the word ‘Islamofascists’ be employing the term ‘Christofascists’ to refer to those who would like to impose Christianity on us? Hitches, to his credit, has been uniform in his opposition to religious extremism. But the people who co-opted the term Islamofascist have used it to rouse the rabble against just one foreign strain of religious lunacy. It has gone from being an expression of rationalist secularist rage, to one of blind xenophobia.
Ron Paul is dead on when he says that “Islamic fascism is propaganda designed to spread war…”, just like a legitimate fear of Bolsheviks was used to justify Nazism.
Comment by Ignatius Gorgonzola — October 13, 2007 @ 9:08 pmI’m no friend of the Religious Right, but the last time I checked they weren’t trying to kill me.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 13, 2007 @ 9:13 pm“This is not the ideology of a peace-loving people.”
Hold on a second there, li’l pardner.
The Arabs and the Iranians could say the exact same thing about Americans. The CIA overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953 and installed a ruthless police state in its place. The Bushes and the Clintons back, without question, the corrupt regimes in Israel and Saudi Arabia.
The fact that it’s taken this long for that part of the world to start defending itself is what surprises me.
Comment by Jim Dwyer — October 13, 2007 @ 9:21 pmPaul is right. Its a stupid term which is used totally out of proper context and without respect for its definition. Its also used to correlate action of certain individuals to states. Fascism is just used against someone that we dont like.
Comment by Daniel — October 13, 2007 @ 10:10 pm“The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism–ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power” -Franklin D. Roosevelt
I suggest we take a look in the mirror.
Comment by hiimallen — October 13, 2007 @ 10:31 pmDoug,
“I’m no friend of the Religious Right, but the last time I checked they weren’t trying to kill me.”
Try being an abortion doctor or working as a volunteer at an abortion clinic if you want to test the religious right’s pacifist leanings. You’re not a target because you’re not perceived as a threat to them. I’ve known plenty of religious people who are all in favor of dropping nukes on every country in the Middle East, even those who don’t attack us. Christianity has been throughout its history every bit as hateful, violent, and totalitarian as Islam. The only major difference is that Christianity has been a bit more willing to accept secular government.
Comment by UCrawford — October 13, 2007 @ 10:54 pmfascism
Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: \?fa-?shi-z?m also ?fa-?si-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
Fascism According To Meriam-Webster
One of the signs that causes me to worry that my society is in decline is the frequency with which political actors try to subvert the language, hijacking words and substituting their own definitions so as to facilitiate the use of those words as clubs against their opponents.
As the neoconservatives and their cheering section use the term, clearly al Qaeda is not facsist. Theirs is a religious philosophy, not a political one. They demand obedience to Allah and the word of his prophet, not the nation or the state. Given the Islamic Republic of Iran is governed largely by a council of clerics, you can hardly call such governance dictatorial.
IOW, just because they want to crash planes into buildings, just because they hate Jews, just because they want to kill infidels does not make them Adolph Hitler, and we should stop portraying them as such, if for no other reason than clarity. For years, the Left in this country demonstrated their intellectual laziness by simply applying the term “fascist” to anything that they didn’t like. It is sad to see the Right now falling into the same trap.
Vote Ron Paul 2008. Because taking your country back should be fun.
Comment by Edward Keithly — October 13, 2007 @ 10:58 pmfascism
Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: \?fa-?shi-z?m also ?fa-?si-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
Fascism According To Meriam-Webster
One of the signs that causes me to worry that my society is in decline is the frequency with which political actors try to subvert the language, hijacking words and substituting their own definitions so as to facilitiate the use of those words as clubs against their opponents.
As the neoconservatives and their cheering section use the term, clearly al Qaeda is not facsist. Theirs is a religious philosophy, not a political one. They demand obedience to Allah and the word of his prophet, not the nation or the state. Given the Islamic Republic of Iran is governed largely by a council of clerics, you can hardly call such governance dictatorial.
IOW, just because they want to crash planes into buildings, just because they hate Jews, just because they want to kill infidels does not make them Adolph Hitler, and we should stop portraying them as such, if for no other reason than clarity. For years, the Left in this country demonstrated their intellectual laziness by simply applying the term “fascist” to anything that they didn’t like. It is sad to see the Right now falling into the same trap.
Vote Ron Paul 2008. Because taking your country back should be fun.
Comment by Edward Keithly — October 13, 2007 @ 10:58 pmSorry about the duplicate post.
Comment by Edward keithly — October 13, 2007 @ 11:00 pmEdward,
The “right” does what the “left” used to because neo-conservatives are basically leftist at heart. Not to sound like a cliche, but there really isn’t any difference between the major parties anymore…they’re both statists, they merely disagree on which issues they should expend their energy first.
Comment by UCrawford — October 13, 2007 @ 11:15 pmIn 1953 the CIA overthrew a democratically elected Prime Minister in Iran for a FACIST purpose. That is, he used his power to seize ownership of Iranian oil from British Petroleum. In 1978, David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger persuaded Carter to allow the Fascist Dictator of Iran to come to the U.S. for medical treatment.
In 1979, the Iranians had enough, and overthrew the Shaw and took hostage Americans from the embassy where the 1953 coup was centrally run. Reagan allowed (unknowingly?) to trade arms for those hostages.
In 1980, the U.S. started selling arms (including biochemical) to Iraq in Sadaam’s attempt to conquer Iran. Kuwait gave Iraq $8.2 billion to help fund the war. Sadaam was declared himself “winner” in 1988, after using biological weapons on the Kurds (who were on Iran’s team). In 1990 he thought he could conquer Kuwait and have U.S. backing. OOOPS.
THOSE DARN JIHADIST JUST HATE OUR CHRISTIAN RELIGION
Comment by hiimallen — October 13, 2007 @ 11:25 pm“there seems to be a tendency from the Paul campaign to believe the leftist/paleo-libertarian idea that the Islamists would leave us alone if we just withdrew from the Middle East completely and stood by and did nothing while they overran Israel and any moderate Arab nation that dared stand in their way with every suicide bomber they could find.”
I suggest the truth. Isreal can take care of herself. She has enough nukes to level Iran tomorrow. I don’t know for sure if they would leave us alone if we left, but I ain’t afraid to try!
Comment by hiimallen — October 13, 2007 @ 11:38 pmUCrawford, you need to watch This video(from 3:00 on)
Comment by hiimallen — October 13, 2007 @ 11:46 pmHiimallen,
Your link is broken.
Comment by UCrawford — October 14, 2007 @ 12:03 amDoug Mataconis says, “I’m no friend of the Religious Right, but the last time I checked they weren’t trying to kill me. [unlike radical terrorists]”
Ok really Doug? Maybe the Christian right are more dangerous than the pathethic Muslim terrorists because the Christian fundies mix their virulent religion to influence politics which in turn is used to kill hundred thousands Muslims in the Middle East.
I rather see few terrorists openly trying to kill me, than having a fundie group intellectually, financially, and politically trying to influence US foreign policy that results in hundreds of thousands more deaths of people.
And Kevin says: “It becomes a problem when those Muslim “extremists” hijack airliners and fly them into buildings killing 3000 people IN AMERICA.”
The only reason the “Islamic extremists” came over here to attack America is NOT TO IMPOSE THEIR SHARIA on you but because they saw American military over there cozy up with their corrupt dictators, kill their people, and support tyranny in their own land. Its quite simple to understand, if one puts him/herself in the shoes of the other.
Comment by SimplyPut — October 14, 2007 @ 12:40 amsorry-
Ron Paul on Abortion
Comment by hiimallen — October 14, 2007 @ 1:39 amFascism is the merger of the corporation and state.
Comment by BOB SMITH — October 14, 2007 @ 3:23 amTheocracy is the merger of religion and state.
It would help if you could define your terms then the issues would not be so confused which is the hallmark of propaganda and mass mind control.
First off we really need to get out of the mindset that we can dictate how other countries run themselves. We as a country need to respect the Sovernty of other nations.
Comment by Kevin — October 14, 2007 @ 5:01 amSecond. Our Government in America has been the cause of more terrorist acts then ANY other nation.
Look at what we did in the 50’s in Iran OVERTHROWING A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT TO INSTALL THE SHAW. A RUTHLESS Dictator in our name. All over oil.
OR in Saudi Arabia how we have protected another Dictatorship. Policing Islamic holyland.
Wake up. We are not god of the world. We have no right to be over there. We need our troops to protect our own borders. Not our gang of thugs milking oil for our rich corrupt leaders.
OUR TROOPS LIVES ARE NOT WORTH THIS!
Please vote Ron Paul so we can bring our boys and girls home.
as for 911
Comment by Kevin — October 14, 2007 @ 5:09 amDO YOU THINK PEOPLE IN A CAVE CAUSED NORAD TO STAND DOWN!!!
Research what NORAD was doing that day. Research the fact DICK CHANEY WAS RUNNING NORAD THAT DAY. FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER IN AMERICA NORAD WAS NOT RUN BY GENERALS!
Research the fact NORAD was running a exercise of the SAME THING THAT HAPPENED. Cauusing mass confusion. Not to mention CHANEY LIMITING THE SPEED INTERCEPTER AIRCRAFT COULD GO TO STOP IT!!
NORAD has never failed to intercept aircraft. F16’s are scrambled within moments of a plane offcourse.
WAKE UP SHEEPLE! Watch Zeitgeistmovie.com
watch terrorstorm, or 9-11 press for truth. Your freedom IS AT STAKE.
I’ve capitulated and switched to “Islamototalitarianism,” simply because I’m tired of having this hopeless, and useless, debate.
Meanwhile, anyone who doubts that radical Islam is a threat to all the free peoples of the world simply does not understand radical Islam. These are people who are perfectly willing, indeed eager, to blow up other Muslims. It takes little imagination to deduce what they’d be willing to do infidels if they had the chance.
al Qaeda may only want to expel the U.S. from Arabia and establish a regional super-caliphate, but al Qadea is not the only element in radical Islam.
Comment by KipEsquire — October 14, 2007 @ 7:48 am“anyone who doubts that radical Islam is a threat to all the free peoples of the world simply does not understand radical Islam.”
I agree with you. For that reason, I oppose putting militant Muslims into the American government as any sane person would.
By the same token, the American government, especially the Federal Police forces, have been taken over by militant Orthodox Jews. Chertoff, Bernanke and Mukasey are all Orthodox Jews and Chertoff may well be a rabbi. The DoD’s chief beancounter in the runup and prosecution of the Iraq invasion, Rabbi Dov Zakheim, slipped under the media’s radar.
Nutjob religious freaks of any stripe must be kept out of government for they’re all a THREAT to all of us. Keep Muslims, Christians and Jews out of Federal positions.
Too bad the rabbis have already taken the government away from Americans.
Comment by Jim Dwyer — October 14, 2007 @ 8:46 amKevin,
I agreed with you all the way up to when you veered off into “trutherism”. Your statements about the generals always running things are factually inaccurate, in times of crisis the President (or VP whenever the President is unavailable) is deeply involved in operational matters. As for your comment about people in caves (which could be summed up as “Arabs could never pull this off, they’re a bunch of stupid heathens incapable of competing against us”) is utterly ignorant, blatantly racist and thoroughly inaccurate. Al-Qaeda had unlimited time to plan and set up 9/11, they got exceptionally lucky thanks to some statutory restrictions that hindered intel collection, and their attacks on the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, the Cole, and their alleged attacks at Khobar Towers and Somalia demonstrated that they possess sufficient tactical capabilities to plan an operation that consisted of nothing more than hijacking a couple of planes with boxcutters (hell, I’ve been able to carry a knife onto a plane before pre-9/11) and flying them into buildings. Here’s a link that, through complete research and scientific analysis done up in peer-reviewed papers, why every single “truther” argument about the WTC is completely full of shit (including your racist “Arabs couldn’t have done this” hypothesis):
http://www.debunking911.com/
Why don’t you take up this line of bullshit with him? He does a great job of pointing out the specific point at which your brain has malfunctioned on this issue and he responds to e-mails (unless the e-mail is just a bunch of random rantings typed in all caps…people who make their arguments in that fashion are usually just mentally ill and/or stupid and don’t care about logic, reason, evidence or truth).
Comment by UCrawford — October 14, 2007 @ 9:34 amBy “him” I mean the guy running the Debunk911 site. I think he actually hates truthers even more than I do…mainly because they distract attention away from the real 9/11 conspiracy, which he discusses here:
http://www.debunking911.com/conspiracy.htm
Comment by UCrawford — October 14, 2007 @ 9:38 amHiimallen,
I don’t give a shit about Ron Paul’s position on abortion (that’s what he was discussing at the 3:00 mark in your link). He has a position on abortion that’s consistent with libertarianism, I respectfully disagree with him about where life begins and how feasible it is to enforce abortion laws (even at the state level), but his method of changing it is the same one I support (let the states decide), so I don’t care and it’s got nothing to do with this thread, which is about Ron Paul’s foreign policy. Stay on topic, please.
Comment by UCrawford — October 14, 2007 @ 9:45 amThe problem we have with Islam is not fascism, it’s fundamentalism. If we want to be consistent, then those who prefer the term “Islamofascism” should also use the term “Christofascism” to refer to fundamentalist Christians. I think the better terms to use in the two cases are “Christian fundamentalism” and “Islamic fundamentalism”. Although I do like Bob Smith’s suggestion regarding the use of the term “theocracy”.
Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 14, 2007 @ 9:53 amI just talked to Ron Paul this weekend in NYC. It was neat.
For the record, I asked him about this (basically). He is extremely opposed to radical Islam (if you read his book “A foreign Policy of Freedom” he actually mentions Radical Islam as a potential threat to our security years before almost anyone else). His point is that the term “Islamofascist” doesn’t actually mean anything and is used to steer Americans toward anger and hostility toward the entire religion of Islam, which IS a peaceful religion.
There are terrorist groups and religious zealot groups around the world that are every bit as nasty as Radical Islam.
Ron Paul’s main issue here is that our foreign policy has helped Radical Islam grow and thrive. His point is that Radical Muslims are committing suicide terrorism because of our occupation of the region, not because they are Muslims. We are fueling the radicalization.
Ron’s whole point is that Radical Islam can hurt American citizens, and that it’s irresponsible and irrational to go into that region and fuel up more radical ideology, while meanwhile neglecting our defense infrastructure, which is in awful shape, and having our National guard etc. over in Iraq when they should be here protecting us.
-Chad
Comment by Chad — October 14, 2007 @ 1:30 pmAs a Muslim, I take exception to the term Islamic-fascism and Islamic fundamentalism.
The “terrorist” violence that we see in the world is a response of the weaker party to an overwhelmingly military juggernaut. It was not a nation-state that attacked the US, but a group of varied individuals in an organization (much like a mafia) who decided to become vigalantes to defend what they thought their own state/gov’t failed to do for their people.
They believed the ends justified the means, but true Islam wouldn’t NEVER EVER condone the loss of innocent life, no matter how noble the ends. The Prophet Muhammad himself forbade the harming of trees and animals during warfare much less taking of lives of non-combatants. That’s why see bin Laden seeking justification and taking refuge in the radical theology of Dr. Zawahiri to gave him the fatwa (which other Islamic scholars could and would never give, namely to harm civilians because they harmed ours) to carry out his murdereous attack.
Indeed looking at the US role in the Muslim Middle East, from Mossadeg’ Iran to the support of Wahabbi Saudis, to the brutal Israeli’s denial of Palestinian existence of state, it doesn’t take much to see why the Muslim population is angry, radicalized, and seeting with hatred of US gov’t and its master Israel.
However, the term “Islamic fascist” was coined and used by neocons intellectuals who have one major objective and goal to which everything revolves: to see the defense and preservation of Israel. therefore they truly believe the enemy of Israel is Islam and Muslims themselves and therefore the enemy must be crafted now.
Just as they used the 9/11 attacks as reasons to link Saddam and his nation for invasion (because he was Israel’s prime enemy along with Iran and Syria), they are now toying with the idea of Iran and then Syria being next. We must all be vigilant and see Dr. Paul’s insightful prophecy as being correct after all.
DO NOT FALL FOR THE TRAP OF Muslims are dangerous, for even the most lethal of these so called “Fascists” couldn’t overthrow ONE WEAK MIDDLE EASTERN GOV’T AS OF YET, YET THE NEOCONS WANT TO PORTRAY THEM AS A FORCE CAPABLE OF COMING OVER HERE AND DESTROYING OUR NATION, CONVERTIN THEM TO ISLAM, AND MAKING OUR WOMEN WEAR THE VEILS.
And do not give these “warmongers of terror” and perpetual war of making Muslims the world over believe that indeed this is a war on Islam itself. For I can guarantee that is ONE WAR OUR NATION WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO WIN. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan as shining examples.
Peace.
AND RON PAUL 4 PRESIDENT IN ‘08!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by serene_jabal — October 14, 2007 @ 1:37 pmChad made a good presentation on the reason we need to get out of not just Iraq but to bring our troops home from everywhere…with the only possible exception – MAYBE – of a few strategic port bases we would need to have for reprovisioning navy surface ships and submarines while conducting exercises, and similar airbases.
Comment by Clay T — October 14, 2007 @ 1:44 pmLike Chad, I have spoken with Dr. Paul and find him quickly engaged and consistant in his private conversations. He told me he really likes Judge Andrew Napolitano due to the fact that he shares a reverence for the Constitution.
Serene,
Then I assume you would denounce the people who threatened violence over a few cartoons in a Dutch newspaper, the guy who killed Theo van Gogh, and the people who wanted to kill Salman Rushie ?
Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 14, 2007 @ 1:53 pmIf Islamofascism is not propaganda, lets declare Armageddon and go to war with Islam.
Fish or cut bait. Its time for the crusades again if they are such a problem.
I for one am sick of the wars. I want Ron Paul to win, and if he doesn’t I may well leave the US. There is no reason to be here and pay socialist level taxes for wars in perpetuity and no socialist services.
Comment by Mick Russom — October 14, 2007 @ 3:43 pmThe term “Islamofascism” is propaganda pure and simple. The proof of this is in the fact that it has no meaning. Who calls themselves Islamofascists? No one. Where is the international headquarters of the Islamofascist movement? Nowhere. There were, and still are, real fascists who describe themselves as such. There are even a few real Nazis around. And, of course, there are still quite a few communists left. And there were once many such people who proudly proclaimed there adherence to these ideologies.
But what is the ideology of Islamofascism? There isn’t any. What do Islamofascists believe? Anything you want them to believe.
Of course, there are radical Islamists running around the world causing trouble. But what’s wrong with calling them “radical Islamists”? Why is the added epithet “Islamofascist” necessary? ONLY for propaganda purposes. The point is to imply that there is some kind of coordinated conspiracy with far greater power than actually exists. Of course, we have to be on our guard against radical Islamic terrorists. But, then again, we have to be on our guard against home-grown terrorists like Timothy McVeigh or the Unabomber as well.
But we won’t stop McVeigh or the Unabomber by invading Iraq or bombing Iran, and we can’t stop radical Islamic terrorists that way either. The whole point of the “Islamofascist” propaganda term is to imply that, somehow, such senseless interventionism actually does have something to do with the War on Terror.
People who use the term are either propagandists themselves or victims of those propagandists. I fail to see how we can refute the propagandists or awaken the victims of that propaganda by validating the term and shoving the issue under the rug.
Comment by Rob — October 14, 2007 @ 4:32 pm“Then I assume you would denounce the people who threatened violence over a few cartoons in a Dutch newspaper, the guy who killed Theo van Gogh, and the people who wanted to kill Salman Rushie?”
Doug Mataconis, of course I’d denounce the people who’d threatened violence for an insulting, offensive, and blasphemous cartoons. But if you expect me to denounce a few bad actors among my faith who employed violence amongst the billions who protested peacefully, then surely you can expect me to ask you to denounce those American troops who’d torture innocent Iraqis at Abu Ghraib, hold Muslims at Guantanamo without charge, invade Muslim lands without pretext, with lies, and for oil/Israel/defense industries.
And for the record, they were not Dutch cartoons but Danish.
As for the killling of theo van goh, again the same illogic is used. Few bad apples are being used to taint over a billion people. I’m not saying there aren’t any bad Muslims, but I refuse to answer for them as I don’t hold you responsible for the crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iran that our gov’t creates in our name. There are good Muslims and bad.
And surely if theo van goh was killed “simply” for expression himself on behalf of women (a deceitful presumption you make) since he took pleasure in being provocativly insulting; then what about Pim Fotuyn who was killed brutally by a Eco-environmentalist? Are we to assume all enviornmentalist green-peace lovers are monsters? Which by the way I happen to be (a tree-loving environmentalist).
In any case both were red necks Dutch nationalist who despised immigrants and took pleasure in demonising the Muslims who they considered 2nd class citizens (the anti-Semitism of the 21st century of Europe) much like Limbaugh, Michael “Savage” Weiner, and Glenn Beck do against Muslims and HIspanics here.
In any case, those are my two cents and Ron Paul is the only candidate with the vision and integrity NOT TO DEMONIZE American Muslims and Islam in general, because he knows the demonization and dehumanization of Muslims is the 1st step into a pertpetual war to justify killing them, because again “its easier on our conscience” to kill somebody we hate, fear, and don’t know…
Comment by serene_jabal — October 14, 2007 @ 8:36 pmDr. Paul is right about the purpose of the term. Let’s not forget the main purpose for his candidacy. It’s NONE OF OUR BUSINESS!!
Their practices, treatment of women, religious intollerence, etc., while detestable to us, is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS! Us concerning ourselves and acting upon that concern (though a false front) is precisely what he is opposed to and why they hate us so much. Theirs is a country that, without our intervention and superiority complex, would never allow such declining and pathetic standards as ours. They would much rather us leave them alone to watch us kill ourselves, than for us to pompoously take them along for the ride.
How can we possibly call ourselves superior after a night of watching American tv and watching how we send our daughters off to school dressed in half shirts and tight jeans that scream of promiscuity whether our daughters know it or not?
Comment by Bubba Ram Elmer — October 15, 2007 @ 5:54 amLet reality tv and our pop culture raise our kids because we’re too lazy and ignorant to do it ourselves, than criticise those cultures that still work from sun up till sundown producing the means for their survival, much like our farmers USED to do before drivin off the farm by government? How can any sane American miss this hypocracy? Oh yea, American Idle, silly me.
Great points, Serene and UCrawford.
What’s the deal with such a loaded question, Doug? It sounds like you were expecting him to condone the actions of a few bad apples (Muslims), thereby attempting to reinforce some sort of “Islam is bad… mmmkay.” mentality.
So… do you condone the actions in Abu Ghraib, the killing of innocent Iraqi civilians by Blackwater/US Military, and torture in general by American security contractors?
What don’t you just come right out and say what you really feel? You hate all Muslims.
Comment by DJ — October 15, 2007 @ 6:18 amI don’t hate all Muslims, I just hate people who want to kill others and consider Western Civilization an enemy.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 15, 2007 @ 7:00 amDoug,
The problem is that when people use meaningless terms like Islamofascism, they’re basically applying it to all Muslims.
We were attacked by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Only al-Qaeda. Not Iraq, not Iran, not “Islamo-fascists”, not even Afghanistan (although they were harboring bin Laden, so the Taliban got what they deserved). The only group that we have any business being at war with now is al-Qaeda. Our presence in Iraq is what allows al-Qaeda to flourish. Our failure to go after bin Laden in Pakistan is what allows al-Qaeda to survive. Our willingness to engage in nation building and interventionism is what allows al-Qaeda to bleed us dry. The neo-conservative philosophy of forced regime change in Middle Eastern countries is no different from the crap the Soviets or the Nazis did when we were opposed to them. Ron Paul is 100% correct on his foreign policy assessment.
Comment by UCrawford — October 15, 2007 @ 8:17 amDoug,
Don’t you ever wonder why Bush calls it the “War on Terror”? “Terror” isn’t an enemy, it’s a tactic. You might as well have a “War on Frontal Assaults” or a “War on Pincer Movements”. Why such a vague definition? Why such loose terminology when defining an enemy?
Perhaps because Bush had always intended to go to war with Iraq from the day he entered office and 9/11 was just his rationalization? Perhaps because having an extremely vague definition of who our enemy is gives the President the ability to declare war wherever he wants? Perhaps because make-believe terms like “Islamo-fascist” help achieve the Bush/Cheney goal of unchecked executive power by scaring the people into seeing conspiracies and looming threats where few exist?
Comment by UCrawford — October 15, 2007 @ 8:29 amBin Laden has certainly recognized the flaw in the neo-conservative philosophy. He said so himself:
“All that we have to do is to send two Mujahideen to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies. This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the Mujahideen, bled Russia for ten years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat.”
Comment by UCrawford — October 15, 2007 @ 8:34 amThere’s one thing I don’t understand, Doug. Why is it that you believe that Ron Paul’s rejection of the word “islamofascist” automatically means that he has engaged in “dismissal of those of us who believe that radical Islam is a threat and a danger and, fundamentally, anti-libertarian is entirely correct.”?
You have no reason to conclude that, and indeed you provide no evidence to prove it. Instead, you ASSUME it’s true because he rejected the word. For you, rejection of a hate-filled word equals rejection of the idea that there is a legitimate threat from hateful people.
You also wrote, “Not everyone who believes that Islamic radicalism is a threat to human freedom wants to invade Iran tomorrow, so maybe it’s time to stop claiming that they do.” But once again, Ron Paul didn’t claim that. Of the word islamofasicist he claimed, “It’s war propaganda designed to generate fear so that the war has to be spread.” That’s true. He was talking about the word and people who constantly push for its use. He was NOT talking about everyone who thinks that terrorism by pseudo-Muslims is a threat.
I, for one, do not minimize the threat from terrorists who falsely claim to be good Muslims, but I don’t for a minute think that there’s any good to be derived from the repeated use of the word Islamofascism.
Successful politics includes the successful use of words. I think Paul is making a very wise political decision not to use a very negative word that could easily backfire on his campaign. You should get over the fact that he rejects the word without turning a blind eye to the threat.
By the way, regarding the word islamofascism itself, I suggest you actually get an English translation of the Quran and read some of it sometime. I have a copy, and while I have no intention of ever becoming a Muslim, I’d have to honestly say that the #1 book of their religion is a lot less hate-filled and a lot more peace-loving than most of the Old Testament is. There is no doubt in my mind that terrorists who call themselves Muslims are as far from mainstream Muslims as it is possible to be.
Having said that, I am greatly concerned that the continued use and spread of the word “islamofascism” and its corresponding hatred and distrust of all that is Muslim could help drive good, peaceful Muslims into the arms of Osama bin Laden and his ilk over time.
Comment by Walt — October 15, 2007 @ 2:12 pmActually, there is a perfectly good word for radical Muslim terrorists that is used in the Muslim community all the time. They are called “Salafists.” I don’t recall the origin of the term, and I’m not sure exactly what unites them ideologically. I don’t think it is regarded as a positive term in most of Islam, but it isn’t a term of opprobrium either. Salafists call themselves Salafists and their views are based on Islam not fascism. If you want to use an accurate term to describe radical Muslims, you would use this term. But, of course, to use that term you would have to know what you were talking about, and you would have to be concerned with educating the public, not propagandizing it. I don’t think Christopher Hitchens qualifies on either of those counts and hence we get “Islamofascism” instead.
Comment by Rob — October 15, 2007 @ 2:36 pmDoug writes:
“#
I don’t hate all Muslims, I just hate people who want to kill others and consider Western Civilization an enemy.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 15, 2007 @ 7:00 am ”
Which includes a lot of people who aren’t Muslims. Some, like Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber, are Westerners themselves as I pointed out in a previous post.
I also pointed out that we cannot awaken the victims of “Islamofascist” propaganda by validating the use of the term. It appears to me that you, Doug, are one such victim.
Ron Paul is absolutely right. “Islamofascism” is a propaganda term intended to perpetuate a need for constant warfare. It is right out of 1984. When are you going to wake up to this fact?
Comment by Rob — October 15, 2007 @ 2:47 pmFine. Let’s drop “Islamofascism”.
I’ll adopt Kip’s idea and refer to it for what it is — Islamototalitarianism.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 15, 2007 @ 2:50 pmWhen asking why Hitchens would use a term like Islamo-fascism you just have to consider the source. I agree with him on a few of his positions (being an atheist myself) but I’m not naive enough to believe the word was conceived to accurately portray a political movement or that it wasn’t meant to be inflammatory.
Hitchens hates religion and attempts to discredit it at every opportunity and he rabidly supports a neo-conservative foreign policy (check out his archives over on Slate sometime). The term “Islamo-fascist” was designed to serve both of his agendas and draw direct comparisons between Islam and the Nazis (an almost universal negative hot button), not to further understanding of the conflict or to provide objective analysis.
Comment by UCrawford — October 15, 2007 @ 2:55 pmDoug,
That word’s just as useless and inaccurate. There are actually countries in the Middle East where Islamic totalitarianism is not the default government setting (Lebanon, Turkey, pre-Soviet Afghanistan, and post-Taliban Afghanistan to name three).
Comment by UCrawford — October 15, 2007 @ 2:58 pmNot to mention that “Islamototalitarianism” ignores variations within Islamic society. The country of Saudi Arabia (who we’re allied with) for example is far less westernized and far more dogmatic than Iran or Jordan. Egypt is a dictatorship but not an Islamic theocracy. Saddam’s Iraq, for all it’s bluster and rhetoric, had more in common with Stalinism than the views of Khomeini, the Taliban or the Wahhabists. Why do you think bin Laden labelled Saddam an apostate ruler?
Comment by UCrawford — October 15, 2007 @ 3:02 pm“Islamototalitarianism” is just old “Islamofascism” in new bottles. The best approach here is to adopt a term that is intrinsically nonjudgemental so that people can discuss the issue without automatically taking sides. “Salafist” seems a good candidate, although I don’t know enough about the term to render a judgement. Perhaps Serene can illuminate us on this question.
There is definitely an important conflict here and we definitely need to be able to address it carefully. Using sloppy terminology does not help the discussion.
Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 15, 2007 @ 3:20 pmChepe,
Agreed…terminology matters, especially when you get into the snakepit that is Middle Eastern politics.
Although I think that the primary reason we’re involved in a war over there is not so much a failure to understand and define, but because of our naive willingness to address every issue that ever pops up in the Middle East regardless of whether we’re capable of doing so competently and whether it concerns us or not. The conflicts and grudges over there go so far back and are so intertwined that even if we use the right terminology we’re still nowhere close to determining the motivations that make the various sides tick. All the more reason to just stay out of it unless it directly concerns us.
Comment by UCrawford — October 15, 2007 @ 3:35 pmI agree completely with you, UCrawford. Setting up clear nomenclature is only the first step. Understanding the context is an even bigger step — and the complexities of Middle Eastern politics are far beyond the ken of all but the specialists.
Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 15, 2007 @ 4:23 pmChepe,
It’s even beyond the reach of the specialists. This is the lesson that empires have learned over and over and over again when they meddle in the Middle East. Islamic society is so fractured and filled with so many hatreds and rivalries and grudges dating so far back that the only people who can possibly sort it out are the locals themselves. And they’re not even close.
That’s why non-interventionism is the best policy we could follow in the Middle East…when we get involved we give them a common external focus for their hatred and create unity where none exists. When we leave them alone, they generally go back to killing each other. As long as we stay involved over there the Middle East will never sort out its very real and serious problems and they’ll never stop hating us. If we leave the resentment won’t go away overnight, but it will start dissipating over time and at the very least we won’t be adding fuel to the fire.
Comment by UCrawford — October 15, 2007 @ 5:17 pmCrawford,
Of the four you named, Lebanon has been in Civil War chaos for nearly 40 years and, well try being an Orthodox Christian in Turkey…..you pretty much exist at the whim of the state and your leader is hand picked by a Muslim dominated government. Not to mention the fact that the Turkish government actively supresses opposition political parties and Kurdish separatists.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 15, 2007 @ 8:19 pmDoug,
The Kurdish government has been repressing separatists because they’re trying to get the south of Turkey to violently secede and take Turkey’s southern oil reserves with them. These would be the same Kurdish separatists that currently launch attacks against civilian and government targets in Turkey from Iraq. So the Kurds are hardly innocent bystanders in all of this.
As for Turkey’s government, they’re authoritarian, but they’re not Islamist:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/turkey/story/0,12700,964020,00.html
“Lebanon has been in Civil War chaos for nearly 40 years”
So? Whether Lebanon is in a civil war or not is not relevant, their state is still not Islamist…it’s a parliamentary democractic republic (albeit one whose democratic practices have been interrupted by Syrian occupation, but their country is still not an Islamic republic run according to the Koran):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon
And the point remains that “Islamo-fascism” or “Islamo-totalitarianism” (or whatever term you want to make up along those lines) is an invalid description because the overwhelming unified Islamic movement the term implies does not exist. The movement against the United States consists of al-Qaeda and a few small terrorist groups that are either loosely affiliated with al-Qaeda or merely inspired by them. Al-Qaeda, Iran and Saddam’s Iraq had nothing to do with each other because none of those groups were conspiring together to attack the United States. This term you’re so fond of throwing around is nothing more than bullshit propaganda used to justify expanding the war to permit Bush’s campaign of forced “democratization”. It’s a bumper sticker slogan and a lie, and you’ve fallen for it hook, line and sinker.
Comment by UCrawford — October 16, 2007 @ 2:14 am[...] the Arab-American News asked Ron Paul what he thought of the term Islamic fascism. It source: Ron Paul And Islamofacsism, The Liberty [...]
Pingback by Ron Paul And Islamofacsism — 2008 President election — October 31, 2007 @ 12:32 am