Why The GOP Calls It "IslamoFascism"

The GOP innoculates itself from attack by accusing other people first.

This is how dishonest people tip their hands in real ife. The thief accuses other people of stealing, because they know other people will notice stuff has been stolen. The liar accuses others of lying, because other people will discover that crazy rumors are going around.

The GOP has accused the Democrats of voter fraud to protect the GOP from charges of stealing elections, they talk about "liberal bias" while buying up the media, they talk about the horrors of homosexuality while consorting with gay hookers.

So why are they in love with "IslamoFascism?" It's the buzzword for Newt, Beck, Haggee, and the bobbleheads at the Washington Times. Could it because they are trying to distract people from the GOP's love of the tools of fascism? That's pretty much a no brainer.

So let's look at the GOP's use of themes from Mein Kampf....

Compare the message of the GOP to what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf about the Jews:

Hitler said that the Jews had no state but they were an international conspiracy.

Hitler said the Jews had no army but they were capable of destroying  Germany.

Hitler said that the Jew committed atrocities against the Aaryan people.

Hitler said that the Germany needed to launch a preemptive world-wide religious war against the Jews purely as a matter of self defense.

Compare this to the GOP's theme of IslamoFascism

The GOP says that the Jews IslamoFascists have no state but they are an international conspiracy.

The GOP says that the Jews IslamoFascists have no army but they are capable of destroying Germany America.

The GOP says that the Jews IslamoFascists commit atrocities against the Aaryan American people.

The GOP says that the Germany America need to launch a preemptive world-wide religious war against the Jews IslamoFascistspurely as a matter of self defense.

We adopted a lot of things developed by the German in the years around  WW2, some good, some bad: jet plane, ICBMs, interstate highways, abstinence campaigns, sanctity of marriage campaigns, hating gays. And the whole world rushed to embrace the use of radio and film propaganda (and later television).

Saying that the GOP uses these techniques, but even the themes right out of Mein Kampf doesn't make them Nazis. But it sure doesn't give them the moral high ground either.

In my next diary on this subject, we'll frame this as an answer to popular wingnut emails.

•  Spring Time For Hitler and Germany

  Thank you, Mel Brooks!

  by bernardpliers on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:04:15 PM PST

•  Casual Comparisons

  to the Nazis don't do anyone any good.

  The GOP is very bad.

  They are not like Hitler and the Nazis.

  by absalom2 on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:07:04 PM PST

  •  I'm Not Calling Them Nazis

    I'll make an edit to the diary

    by bernardpliers on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:10:47 PM PST

  •  How Many Iraqis are dead because of US?

    Half a million?

    Liberated?

    Maybe it's past the time for casual comparisons.

    The diarist correctly points out that Rove and the Bush administration have used Nazi propaganda methods and political tactics.

    by FishOutofWater on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:13:55 PM PST

  •  It is NOT a casual comparison

    This administration has set up torture gulags all over the planet. It has trained and established death squads. It has contracted with Halliburton to create concentration camps on our very soil. It is funding its own private right-wing militia (Blackwater) with taxpayer money. It can "disappear" anyone it declares an "enemy combatant," citizen or otherwise. It has conspired to corrupt the election process at all levels. It ignores oversight and the role of Congress. It considers itself above the law. It has destroyed our Constitution and all semblance of due process.

    Just because they are not responsible for 10 million deaths (yet) does not make a comparison with HOW the Nazis rose to power unfitting. If people woke up to the similarities earlier we might not be where we are now.

    by rhetoricus on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:14:49 PM PST

    •  I've said this before, and I'll say it again

      Calling the U.S. fascist is like calling a machine gun a musket. We picked up a lot of neat tricks from the Germans and improved on them immeasurably, from rockets to TV to corporatism. We've discovered that it's easier to rule the world if you can simply convince people that they are free. Isn't it super that the good guys won?

      by Alfred E Qaeda on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:56:50 PM PST

      •  Word. n/t

        by rhetoricus on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:01:59 PM PST

      •  Because We Would Never Ever Ever Misuse Them

        Remind me again - we won WW2, right?

        by bernardpliers on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:23:11 PM PST

  •  we just haven't...

    given them the time and space, yet!

    Shoot, if they had their way, they'd succeed in making their New World Orderdreams come true.

    by rickpickett on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:50:31 PM PST

  •  Not Nazis, fascists

    -but I'm not sure the distinction is useful.

    by Thomas Twinnings on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:29:49 PM PST

•  You have the spin down..

  My recent fav is the accusation that climate scientists warning about global warming are "on the take," and BOR and Lush smearing honest left-wing media outlets by calling them "smear merchants."

  by rhetoricus on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:07:24 PM PST

•  The terrorists who attacked us on 911 said in

  their videos that they did it in the name of Islam.  Likewise the London Subway attackers and others.  To say that radical islamists, or jihadis are attacking the west and moderate muslims is simply to state what is happening.  Strategies to deal with this can vary, but acknowledging the threat is necessary.

  by sandbox on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:07:59 PM PST

  •  Not

    A small band of committed nut jobs do not a political movement make.

    When OBL's Al Qaeda party takes over a government, or wins an election, then you have Islamofascists. Fascism isn't anything until it is the state. By definition, fascism is the supremacy of the state over the individual.

    They may want it, but they don't have it. And there isn't a realistic threat of them getting it. At least as soon as we stop making them look better than us.

    by evilpenguin on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:14:30 PM PST

    •  uh hello

      Palistinian government? Hamas?

      by bassman on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:15:15 PM PST

      •  Hamas

        To some extent, yes, but they are a creation of the whole western-imposed state of Israel and the perception that America and the west are one sided. Even if they were not there, a similar violent movement would exist, I think.

        The sad thing is, they could win tomorrow if they adopted Ghandi/King-style non-violence.

        I don't think their "Islamic" nature is crucial to the conflict. Were they of another religion, I think it would all play out in a similar way.

        I think the emphasis on "Islam" in the phrase and in the the rhetoric about the conflict is designed to provoke American fears and prejudices rather than to provide insight into the nature and motives of "the enemy."

        by evilpenguin on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:21:20 PM PST

        •  Question

          Do you know of any democracy in an islamist country where individual rights are protected?

          by bassman on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:23:46 PM PST

          •  Unfair

            Ask the same question of the Christian world circa 1600.

            The fact that secular liberal democracy was invented (or, perhaps more accurately, resdicovered) in the West a little over 200 years ago doesn't say anything about Christianity per se.

            Also, who drew the borders and installed the leaders in the middle east?

            Take a look at the laws and customs of Moorish Spain prior to El Cid and ask yourself if you would rather live there or in 17th century Spain?

            The term "Islamofascist" is nothing but inflammatory race-baiting. Of what do they need to be divested? Their Islamicness or their fascism? Then why conflate the two?

            by evilpenguin on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:31:22 PM PST

            •  yeah

              It will probably take over a 100 years of modernization before democracy and liberalism could take root in Islamic countries.  Fine, but what happens as the Islamic culture gains majority in already established democracies.  It frightens me.  Will they assimilate or remain culturally isolated.  

              by bassman on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:34:59 PM PST

          •  Democracy in Pakistan and Indonesia weak.

            I would say that democracy is terribly weak in Pakistan and Indonesia. When Pakistan was ruled by Zia ul-Haq, he allied himself with the religious extemists to cover up for his lack of support from the country's majority. Indonesia had only recently thrown off the Suharto dictatorship and had not come to grips with what the Separation of Mosque and State means. I'm not familiar with Bangladesh, they may in fact be the answer.

            Just remembered--and they had big demonstrations there today--TURKEY! They may be Secular Fundamentalists, but they did let the religious party win the Prime Ministry.

            One more last minute thought--you may accuse me of missing the difference between IslamIST and IslamIC. The same would go for Christian countries vs. ChristianIST ones. Tomas de Torquemada was no respector of civil liberties.

            by Judge Moonbox on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:57:33 PM PST

        •  Troll?

          I can take the occasional downrate, but I'm curious. Was it my description of Israel as "western-imposed" that set off your trigger?

          In saying that I in no way meant to imply that Israel doesn't have the right to exist. Although I do think they have some civil rights issues with regard to the Palestinians, they are a democracy with the rule of law. And their civil rights issues are arrived at honestly with the violence and terrorism of the PLO in the past and Hamas in the present.

          But that Israel's present existence is owed in part to the West is indisputable. From the Balfour Declaration to the USA's ongoing military support, the West is involved in the founding and maintenance of Israel.

          I'm not making judgments in so saying.

          I guess I would say that if any dislocated peoples were to displace another people, no matter how ancient and valid their claim, the recently displaced people would be angry.

          It is clear that Israel cannot be abandoned. It is clear that the Palestinian question is the key inflammatory fact in the geopolitics of the Middle East. Settling that conflict peacefully is the only real hope of eliminating the threat of any sort of jihadist or terrorist movement.

          On the whole, the only point of my post that got a troll rate is that the fact that the terrorists are Muslims is beside the point. Given the historical facts, there would be resentment and even hatred. This is an explanation, not an excuse. Nothing excuses the wanton killing of innocents. As I said, were the Palestinians to begin a systematic campaign of non-violent resistance, I think they would acheive their ends rather quickly. That's just an opinion. But seeing the IDF wade into a crowd of Palestinians who are simply sitting and singing would have a very different effect in both Israel and the US than seeing the IDF wade into a crowd of rock-throwing, fire-starting, gun-shooting Palestinians.

          If what I am saying here is troll-worthy, so be it.

          by evilpenguin on Wed May 02, 2007 at 09:30:49 AM PST

      •  They may be violent

        but I don't see the fascism. One definition is

        a political system in which all power of government is vested in a person or group with no other power to balance and limit the activities of the government. Fascist governments are often closely associated with large corporations and sometimes with extreme nationalism and racist activities. Modern fascism is often called "CORPORATISM"

        http://www.naiadonline.ca/...
        There are some traits there that are shared by Hamas, but some are shared by our government too.

        by dougymi on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:35:09 PM PST

    •  Oh, and...

      ...if you were going to point to Afghanistan as such a state, well, that is why I never opposed our invasion of Afghanistan, although I think we are seriously f---ing up there too, because the resources that we should have used to stabilize that country are busy continuing to destabilize Iraq.

      by evilpenguin on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:16:07 PM PST

    •  and

      Iran

      by bassman on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:16:25 PM PST

      •  So are we

        Christofacists when we invade and conquer countries because we happen to be majority Chirstian? Is Israel Davidofascist?

        The words are not meaningful, informative, or helpful.

        by evilpenguin on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:22:38 PM PST

        •  Christofacists

          also exist but aren't a threat.  

          by bassman on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:24:31 PM PST

          •  Why are they not?

            by evilpenguin on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:35:31 PM PST

            •  There fading

              The christian right overall is losing influence in the U.S.  The gay issue will really isolate them in the next decade.  I know abortion rights may see saw but I see growth in secularism.  

              by bassman on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:39:32 PM PST

          •  What movie have you been watching?

            The Christofascists own Blackwater, Bush's no- accountability mercenary army funded by you and me. The Christofascists support endless war in the Middle East because they think it will bring Jesus back. They are taking over segements of our military. They are making freaking video games so little kids can practice gunning down "infidels" like queers and Muslims and atheists. They are in bed with the neocons. They support the utter destruction of our Constitution, which is why they are not outraged by the assaults upon our freedoms by GWB. The Christofascists are MUCH more dangerous than Islamic extremists because they are INSIDE our government, and in many cases own government members through their multiple financial interests and backers like Scaife and Coors and the Olin Foundation.

            These guys are scary as HELL.

            by rhetoricus on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:46:06 PM PST

            •  But

              We can fight them now in our country.  We can easily take the presidency in 08 and maintain congressional majority.  By the time the GOP recovers, and they will, the ability of them to use gay marriage and other social issues will be less potent.  With more people getting higher degrees, liberalism is prospering.

              Islam is a much bigger threat to liberalism than the christain right could ever be.  Trust me.  

              by bassman on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:51:55 PM PST

              •  From your mouth to God's ear

                ..about the elections. I fear there may be infrastructural damage to this country that may take generations to repair.

                Islam is not the problem. Islamic extremism is the problem. What fuels extremism is our occupation.

                by rhetoricus on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:58:41 PM PST

                •  I agree

                  Our occupation of Iraq will do down as the single greatest blunder of this century.  It will fuel extremism for another decade or so.  The only bright side.  And I mean the only bright side is the political price the GOP should and must pay for such a catastrophic error.  

                  by bassman on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:05:43 PM PST

              •  Can we assume that King George will vacate

                the throne?

                by jimreyn on Tue May 01, 2007 at 09:51:31 PM PST

      •  You can't lump Suuni and Shiite together

        In addition to recycling anti-Jewish propaganda to use against Arabs, "IslamoFascism" provides a convenient way to lump together Suuni and Shiite, even though they fought a huge 8 year war back in the 80's.

        by bernardpliers on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:25:38 PM PST

        •  Suuni Talaban & Shiites

          Both have demonstrated oppression of individual rights on a grand scale.  I cringe when I see how casual liberals on this site take islam.  I see cristianity as a small weakening threat but Islam as a bigger and building threat that hopefully India and China will buffer and prevent its spread into Europle.  

          by bassman on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:29:25 PM PST

          •  Threat Comes From GOP Selling Our Infrastructure

            OPEC is looking for new cash cows for the day the oil run out.

            Luckily for them, the GOP is eager to sell them our infrastructure (Dubai ports deal ring a bell?). As long as they get our petrodollars and we're in debt, it is inevitable that they will buy our ports, water system, power grid, airports, rails, bridges, phone, and internet. Then they will squeeze you dry paying for basic services.

            They don't need to conquer us - the GOP is already putting your butt on the auction block.

            by bernardpliers on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:39:47 PM PST

          •  Individuals twisting Islam to their own ends.

            The religion as a creed does not support the actions that these people profess to take in its name.

            You're lumping the millions of religious followers into the horrific deeds of a few despotic regimes (who, by definition, give their people no say in governance), and then proposing that these people are complicit in the actions of your strawman.

            by KiaRioGrl79 on Wed May 02, 2007 at 04:42:51 PM PST

        •  Maybe the term Islamofascist is not the best

          descriptive.  Perhaps jihadis, Radical Islmamists.

          by sandbox on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:42:30 PM PST

          •  So Why Is The GOP So Fixated on "Fascism?"

            You  already know what I think

            by bernardpliers on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:05:47 PM PST

        •  Well, not anymore

          There was a guy doing it (albeit brutally) but we hanged him and shot anyone who disagreed.

          by Alfred E Qaeda on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:49:29 PM PST

    •  Small band of committed nutjobs?

      Like the Bolsheviks?

      by calipygian on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:19:06 PM PST

      •  From the UK Telegraph

        Almost nine in 10 Muslims think that any government moves to ban the veil would hurt social cohesion.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...

        by sandbox on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:49:57 PM PST

        •  that's their culture

          who are we to force our version of government on anybody else?

          by hypersphere01 on Tue May 01, 2007 at 11:34:47 PM PST

  •  Not exactly.

    Truly authenticated bin Laden tapes reveal a religious zealot to be sure, and radical Islam is used as a recruiting tool, but the REASONS for the threats are always land-related. Before 9/11, bin Laden threatened the US because we had bases on holy land in Saudi Arabia. Guess what? Bush closed the primary base after 9/11. Gave bin Laden just what he wanted.

    Now, the US is being threatened because we are occupying their damn land again! Was al Qaeda a big force before we invaded Iraq? NO. But we have provided the perfect terrorist recruiting cause.

    The "problem" you speak of wouldn't exist if we'd leave them and their evil, poisonous oil the fuck ALONE.

    by rhetoricus on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:25:58 PM PST

    •  IMO the primary motivation for terrorist attacks

      by Islamists are religious:

      Check out: http://www.amazon.com/...

      Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror--by Mary Habeck

      quote from same:

      The consistent need to find explanations other than religious ones for the attacks says, in fact, more about the West than it does about the jihadis.  Western Scholars have generally failed to take religion seriously.  Secularists, whether liberal or socialists, grant true exploratory power to political, social, or economic factors but discount the plain sense of religious statements made by the jihadis themselves.  To see why jihadis declared war on the United States and tried to kill as many Americans as possible, we must be willing to listen to their own explanations. To do otherwise is to impose a Western interpretation on the extremists, in effect to listen to ourselves rather than to them. (page 7)

      by sandbox on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:33:25 PM PST

      •  Wahabbism

        Which is a reactionary religious and political movement arising in direct response to Western imperialism.

        I'm done feeding trolls.

        by evilpenguin on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:35:00 PM PST

        •  Political "Religious" Motives: Money, Sex, Power.

          The Taliban lost power when it got into heroin and rampant child molestation. Sort of like the GOP.

          by bernardpliers on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:48:11 PM PST

      •  Low-level soldiers

        ..are recruited using religion, as are the suicide-bombers, etc. High-level tacticians--the ones directing the efforts--are concerned about land and resources. You can bet that the prime motivator for MOST of the rage against the US has nothing to do with our religion or theirs. It has to do with our occupying their land. Otherwise, why don't they target those heathen Christian Swedes, or Finns, Canadians, or the Dutch?

        by rhetoricus on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:56:00 PM PST

        •  Where have you been?

          a major radical islamist terrorist ring was broken up in Toronto last year.  Likewise in Holand.

          by sandbox on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:58:11 PM PST

          •  What was their TARGET, though?

            Yes, they move in Europe and Canada. But who are they after? US allies in the Iraq war.

            by rhetoricus on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:00:21 PM PST

          •  Hahaha? In Canada?! Might want to check facts:

            a major radical islamist terrorist ring was broken up in Toronto last year.

            Dude! They were freakin' playing paintball.

            Maybe, maaaaybe, one of them (out of seven or ten) was talking about moving things up a notch, but you'll notice that there haven't been any big pronouncements lately from Harper about how we "broke up a life-threatening terror cell", and if anyone would love to bloviate about it, he would.

            If every group of Canadians talking about hating Bush and the neocons' actions was considered a major terrorist ring, at least three quarters of this country would be in jail.

            by KiaRioGrl79 on Wed May 02, 2007 at 04:20:34 PM PST

  •  The key part of the phrase

    is "fascist".

    No one is saying that Republicans are hiding their Islamic tendencies by calling the enemy IslamoFascists.

    Your comment suggests that you think bernardpliers is objecting to the "Islamic" part of "IslamoFascist".

    Al Qaeda call themselves "Islamic", yes.  It's no distortion to say that they consider themselves Islamic.

    It is, however, very odd to call them "fascist".  "Fascism" names a particular mixture of totalitarian government and openness to corporate interests.  It's hard to imagine a political movement al Qaeda would want less to become.

    bernardpliers is hypothesizing that the Republicans add "fascist" out of projection.  Not, "Islamic".

    by LithiumCola on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:32:22 PM PST

    •  I see a lot more fascism

      in the publican dreams for our country than I do in bin Laden's dreams for Islam. At least so far.  Islamist? yes. Fascist? not so much.

      Let them seize a country and become nationalists before they can become fascists.  Right now I see more anarchist traits in Islamism than anything centralized.

      by dougymi on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:40:22 PM PST

    •  How about 'Islamopaths'? n/t

      by Alfred E Qaeda on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:52:14 PM PST

      •  How about calling them al Qaeda?

        Or, if some description is needed, "Militant fundamentalists"?

        Just because they call themselves Muslim doesn't mean we have to.

        by LithiumCola on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:54:15 PM PST

        •  Well, it is a fundamental part

          of their self-identity. Although I'm sure that when one of them is killed by U.S. bullets they have other names for us than "enlightened and benevolent bringers of freedom".

          by Alfred E Qaeda on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:04:04 PM PST

  •  Provided you're willing...

    ...to call Mussolini and Franco, Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph "Christofascists."

    by Judge Moonbox on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:48:05 PM PST

  •  But know WHY they are attacking...

    Not because "they hate our freedoms" but because they hate our American presence in their lives and countries.  Osama is on tape stating that face, but we can't be the bigger person and get the heck out of their countries.

    by rickpickett on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:52:42 PM PST

    •  Osama Has Always Been Very Explicit

      About wanting the US outand promising not to attack if we left.

      But he is also happy as all get out of we stay because it increases his power.

      Do we need to track him down? Oh hell yes.

      by bernardpliers on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:00:14 PM PST

  •  Not really

    OBL said he wanted US troops out of his Holy Land (Saudi Arabia).  Bush acceded to this demand, then appeared under a Mission Accomplished banner a few days later. Al Qaued's struggle is against occupation of muslim lands by western powers and their local despotic henchmen. These colonial regimes have crushed all political dissent so brutally, for so long, that the only  outlet for political frustration left was religion, hence the rise of jihadism, a mundane nationalism cloaked in religious terminology.

    by Snarcalita on Tue May 01, 2007 at 10:27:05 PM PST

•  Simple

  Christofascist was taken.

  by evilpenguin on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:10:45 PM PST

•  I hate to say it

  I agree with the GOP bastards on this one.  Aside form overpopulation and its effect on the environment, Islamofacism is the 2nd biggest threat to liberalism.  I'm not joking, I hope to modern Islamic countries can seperate their religion more from their culture and government because it is a 3x more oppressive than christianity

  by bassman on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:12:51 PM PST

  •  Bush's Tactics have engendered extremism

    Bush has helped make extremists into local heroes in the middle east. Of course, there are Muslim extremists but the name calling, war mongering and oil thievery is advancing the cause of extremists and hurting Muslim moderates.

    by FishOutofWater on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:17:59 PM PST

    •  yeah

      I agree, If the GOP is afraid of Islamofacism than they are acting foolishly with the invasion of IRAQ.

      by bassman on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:19:01 PM PST

      •  I Think Burroughs Doped That Out 50 Years Ago

        I'm looking for the quote:

        What'll we do when the oil runs dry?
        We'll all sit around and watch the Arabs die.

        Of course, the problem will continue IF the GOP continues to privatize our infrastructure and sell it off to the Arabs. In which case they WILL dictate the way we live ot if we live.

        by bernardpliers on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:33:15 PM PST

        •  Scary

          We need alternative energy and a complete removal of interest from the middle east.  Let them figure things out on their own.  Probably too late with Iraq though.

          by bassman on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:36:53 PM PST

  •  We have 37K of them in gulags

    And we have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. We have 14 massive bases in their country and we are training death squads that are raping and torturing their people. Iraqis never invaded or seriously threatened us before we stormed their country. Of COURSE they are pissed off! Or COURSE Iraq is becoming a haven for terrorist recruitment.

    Bin Laden originally threatened the US for having bases in Saudi Arabia. They want us off their damn land. So would we if they had bases here! Can you IMAGINE how murderously furious we would be if they came over, desposed our leader, set up military bases, tortured and raped our people, and allowed everything to descend to hell because they were more concerned about protecting the resources they planned to steal from us?

    Yes, fundamentalist Islam is very repressive. But our presence inflames fundamentalism and weakens moderates.

    by rhetoricus on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:37:09 PM PST

    •  I think we're doing a good job

      of oppressing them right now.  Accusing Islam of oppressing anyone is rather obscene of us at the moment.

      by LithiumCola on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:40:26 PM PST

      •  For a Republican yes

        I never wanted our influence in Iraq.  I know I pay American taxes and I know where it goes.  But Islamist culture is the single most oppressive force of human rights that currently exists on our planet.  I'm not saying that other poeple/governments aren't far behind but Islamic culture, whatever the reasons, is the most oppressive.  

        by bassman on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:45:13 PM PST

        •  Their culture is what it's always been

          Except that now the oil industry keeps giving them virtually unlimited amounts of money.

          Funny how NOW we're all in a lather about they nasty nasty culture. We have gone through many fantasies about the Middle East including the Crusades, Arabian Nights, Lawrence of Arabia, Aladdin, and now Bin Laden. Each time we thing we have arrived at deep insights.

          by bernardpliers on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:57:25 PM PST

        •  This is ridiculous.

          Islamist culture is the single most oppressive force of human rights that currently exists on our planet.

          So the Kurds are running around "oppressing" people.  So . . . what?  Hussien?  Hussien wasn't particularly Muslim.

          Saudi Arabia?  The government is.  Bush's buddies.

          What do you mean by "Islamic culture"?

          Indonesia?  Morocco?

          by LithiumCola on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:58:09 PM PST

          •  I mean it in a vague sense

            Its not necessarily the people or the religion but the confluence of them in their culture and the way it effects their veiw of government.  Iran, Taliban and Syria seem to be the worst offenders.  I'm not excusing the actions of other countries.  I'm just saying that while on the surface christianity could seem to be just as oppressive, in the real world it doesn't seem to have the same effect as Islam.  

            by bassman on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:01:27 PM PST

            •  BS....

              What is the last Muslim country that you have visited and what f*cked up source do you rely on for information. After just returning from one of these countries, while they certainly have their issues, the feeling among the people was very progressive.

              You go from saying

              Islamist culture is the single most oppressive force of human rights that currently exists on our planet.

              to saying you mean it in a 'vague sense'. Quite the contradiction at the very least.

              by dss on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:09:21 PM PST

              •  Culture

                Im saying that you can't blame a single factor. Culture and its reaction to foreign involvement is a complex thing.  But the Taliban and Iranian government are a shining example of what could happen in an islamic country.  It could happen in any country but I feel its more likely with the way Islam integrates into society.  

                by bassman on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:12:10 PM PST

                •  Western involvement...

                  Look at the history of Western involvement in many of the countries that you are pointing at. We have a very rich history of actively supporting the most unstable elements of these countries in order to control them either militarily or their natural resources.

                  I would propose that in recent history, we have done more to bring about the unstable nature of the current states than Islam.

                  by dss on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:22:44 PM PST

                  •  This is my last comment

                    I hope your right and that Islam will integrate well into our soceity and in Europe.  

                    by bassman on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:26:03 PM PST

                    •  Perhaps...

                      'our society' will learn again to integrate with others, whomever 'they' are...good chattin' ;-)

                      by dss on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:33:04 PM PST

                  •  And Western Money

                    That money fuels everything we hate about them.

                    Ironic, ain't it?

                    by bernardpliers on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:26:20 PM PST

          •  Kurds

            still have slavery, ask a U.S. soldier who has been in Kuwait.  

            by bassman on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:02:34 PM PST

            •  How about I ask you.

              Gotta link?

              by LithiumCola on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:57:59 PM PST

      •  Unless you're a woman n/t

        by Alfred E Qaeda on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:59:24 PM PST

  •  Does the Koran say,

    "Go forth and oppress not once, not twice, but three times the number that Christians do!

    "Three shall be the number of thy oppressing, and the number of thine oppressed shall be three!

    Two shalt thou not oppress, excepting that thou then oppresseth three!

    Four times more shalt thou not oppress.  Five is right out!"

    No . . . the Koran does not say that.  

    by LithiumCola on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:39:17 PM PST

•  From the dictionary:

  Fascism is the collusion of government and big business. That shoe doesn't fit bin Laden, but it does fit the GOP.

  by MyBrainWorks on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:20:59 PM PST

  •  Fascism

    As defined by Merriam-Webster:

    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
    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
    2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality </p>

    by Rimjob on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:25:25 PM PST

    •  The problem is that

      many quick dictionary definitions of "fascism" could just as well apply to Stalinist Communism.  You can mush it all together if you want to, but you lose a lot of valuable distinctions in your political discourse.

      MyBrainWorks's comment is correct.

      by LithiumCola on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:42:13 PM PST

    •  I must have

      a better dictionary. Try Encarta.

      any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism.

      by MyBrainWorks on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:45:43 PM PST

    •  The fluid definition of fascism...

      The definition of fascism changes with whoever is defining it based on who the target of the nonce is. There are a lot of aspects to fascism, and it is not one thing to the exclusion of others. Fascism falls under the larger umbrella of right-wing authoritarianism, which the "Islamofascists" (for simplicity, I'll go ahead and use this word for Qaeda and supporters) certainly do as well.

      On the most basic surface impressions test, do the Islamofascists fit the image of a bundle of sticks tied together with an axehead poking out? That is, does their organization promote a close bond between members and violence towards the outside? Yep, they do.

      On those "twelve points of fascism" and similarly written lists that people spread around to match fascism with the Bush administration, the Islamofascists usually match the points just as well as Bush.

      In the grandparent post, MyBrainWorks mentioned the widespread defintion of fascism (usually cited to Mussolini) as collusion between state and industry. Islamofascism is instead merger of church and state. Rather than the industry taking over the state, the church takes over the state and then uses the state to take over industry. It's a different situation, so the Islamofascists do not fit this definition.

      The parent post by Rimjob contains a more vague definition of fascism from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. This definition has little to distinguish it from right wing authoritarianism in general, so it's not suprising that it fits the Islamofascists.

      Mussolini had another definition of fascism in the essay The Doctrine of Fascism. If my memory serves, he defined it as a rejection of not only socialism but the underlying 18th/19th-century liberal values that socialism is built upon. This certainly seems to be the case for Islamofascism. However, there is some context to add to the definition. Mussolini and Hitler started out as socialists, and later became fascists when they rejected socialist philosophy (and the underpinning liberalism). I am not aware of the Islamofascists ever starting out with an acceptance of socialist or liberal values. They seem to have hated liberals from the get-go.

      My biggest problem with the term Islamofascism is that it was popularized by people trying to paint all Muslims as terrorists and fascists, not just the terrorists and fascists. Use of the term shows that you've been getting your ideas from unsavory places, unless it has been mainstreamed by now. That had been the case a year ago.

      by Cecrops Tangaroa on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:57:54 PM PST

      •  As I wrote above, the objections to the

        "fascism" part of Islamofascism have led to the more common use of "jihadis" or "radical islamists" as descriptive phrases.

        by sandbox on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:09:11 PM PST

        •  Jihadis Not Very Specific

          Jihad mean religious vocation, not war.

          There is another term Muslims use for hipocracy and apostate Islam, but it escapes me.  

          by bernardpliers on Tue May 01, 2007 at 08:19:54 PM PST

      •  So we fight fascism with fascism?

        Thanks for your definition of fascism though I think the term can apply to any right-wing, authoritarian political philosophy which describes some, but not all, Islamic states.  Our current administration seems to think that right-wing authoritarianism is the answer to Islamic right-wing authoritarianism.  Pretty ironic, no?  I have been very, very nervous about the Bush administration's move toward fascism, particularly it's infringement on civil rights supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution.  I suspect this has happened before.  It certainly happened in WWII with the internment of Japanese-Americans, but the infringements on rights is happening to ALL Americans now.  That seems to me to be a different thing though I certainly don't excuse the hysteria that resulted in interning perfectly loyal Japanese-Americans.  However, the irony of the Republican (actually I don't think the radio personalities or the current administration are real Republicans) use of the term "fascism" has not been lost on me and I suspect many others agree.

        by bitteroldhag on Tue May 01, 2007 at 09:47:44 PM PST

        •  Pretty Much. One Hand Washes The Other.

          Bush needs Osama and vice versa

          by bernardpliers on Tue May 01, 2007 at 10:00:18 PM PST

•  hey bp see my diary "islamo corporatism"

  off subject a little but you may enjoy . very well writen ( not me ).

  by cognitive dissonance on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:21:06 PM PST

  •  Thanks! Bookmarked it! n/t

    by bernardpliers on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:30:36 PM PST

•  IslamoFascism

  It's a gut phrase.  Doesn't Savage take credit for coining it?  All the above semantic analysis is off track.  Semantics is for the cognitive brain function.  Gut phrases are aimed at the emotional brain function.  They make a direct appeal to the reptilian brain.

  Savage was talking about the Bush veto earlier tonight.  "He vetoed the bill that the democrats passed, which would have cut off funding for the troops."  Doc Savage might not have had to take a course on logic, but it seems he's up to speed on Orwell.

  by baad on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:09:36 PM PST

  •  Savage is a Hoot And Channels Mein Kampf

    I used to listen to Savage while on long drives, and you'd swear he has Mein Kampf open on the desk beside him. A friend also listened, so I'd tell him "You know that part where Savage says high schools make boy effeminant? Hitler wrote 3 pages on that!"

    by bernardpliers on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:33:06 PM PST

•  Projection!

  I never get tired of saying it:

  Projection now, projection tomorrow, projection forever!

  The GOP is really just a one-trick pony. Has been for 50 years.

  by keirdubois on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:51:14 PM PST

•  it's so they don't sound like hypocrites.

  I don't know if any of you have read anything by Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins. I think a lot of people are just horrified at Islam, not this "Islamofascism", which strikes me as a silly political term invented by the far right and which has very little to do with "fascism" per se. The reason these right wing dorkwads feel the need to call it "Islamofascism" is that if they criticize Islam, then, who knows, some people might start questioning religion in general--even, gasp, Christianity! And then where would they be?
  Indeed, our current administration has its hands completely tied.

  by doublerunner on Tue May 01, 2007 at 08:11:42 PM PST

•  That term

  The first time that I heard that term was in around 2003, in California, listening to the nut Michael (Wiener) Savage.  Later, he took credit for inventing it.  I am not unsure that he did not.  It sounds right for him.  Do not take him lightly:  even though a nut, he is really bright.  That does not mean that I admire him, I am just stating a fact.  I do think that he is marginalized enough now not to have much of an audience.  I will give him this:  nutty as he is, he just does not repeat Rethug talking points endlessly like Hannity, Limbaugh, or Coultergeist.  Every now and then he breaks out of the mold.  Perhaps even more cause to beware of him.  Just a thought.  Warmest regards, Doc.

  by Translator on Tue May 01, 2007 at 08:34:26 PM PST

•  Why isn't this on the recco list?

  This is a great diary.  You are absolutely right-on there, Bernard.

  by theyrereal on Tue May 01, 2007 at 10:08:07 PM PST

  •  Oh, I've been pissing people off lately

    It definitely costs you karma points even if you never get a donut.

    Thanks for the thought!

    by bernardpliers on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:05:49 AM PST

•  GOP = Nazi?

  they are getting closer.

  by hypersphere01 on Tue May 01, 2007 at 11:26:29 PM PST

•  sorry, don't buy it.

  While it's real clever how you crossed out the "jews" and put "islamofacists" in their place; that doesn't prove your point. It doesn't prove anything. Only that you can properly format html.

  Because, while Hitler was demonstratably lying about the jews... you still have to prove to me that anyone is lying about the islamofacist threat. Just saying it's crazy doesn't make it so.

  To break it down for simplicity:

  • IslamoFascists have no state but they are an international conspiracy.

  Is there a State of Islamofacism that I'm unaware of? Yet they seem to self-identify with each other and work together for a common goal. That's an international conspiracy, plain and simple.

  • IslamoFascists have no army but they are capable of destroying America.

  Thousands of terrorists have trained in their camps, which are located all over the world. In Tenet's new book, he describes a period of time after 9-11 where there was much intelligence "rumbling" that there was a nuke in NYC. He describes many instances of Al-Queda targeting America, and provides more details into the several plots in progress that we broke up.

  • IslamoFascists commit atrocities against the American people.

  Not just Americans. Any non-islamic group that stands in their way. Remember 9/11?

  • America needs to launch a preemptive world-wide  war against IslamoFascists purely as a matter of self defense.

  Well, yes. Because doing nothing for 20 years obviously hasn't worked.

  One thing you keep overlooking about this Hitler comparison is that you're the one trying to tell me that what I'm seeing is not what I'm seeing. Why are you the one trying to spread disinformation?

  by tfl on Wed May 02, 2007 at 11:23:57 AM PST

  •  OK, You're Seeing What You're Seeing

    The script it still out of Mein Kampf.

    And the GOP has glommed onto the word "fascism" to conceal its use of the Nazis' propaganda techniques.

    And tonight I'll watch Glenn Beck call Gore a Nazi for (gasp) trying to reduce tail pipe emissions. That's Al's evil plan for world domination. Riiiight.

    The only techniques the GOP still has any luck with are the ones from Mein Kampf, so it's all Hitler all the time. Notice that people like Beck, Savage, and Haggee refer to Mein Kampf continuously.

    by bernardpliers on Wed May 02, 2007 at 12:34:03 PM PST

    •  because Beck just read mein kampf

      That's why he seems to be mentioning it lately. I don't know who the other guys are, and couldn't care less. And honestly, I've see references to Mein Kampf around dkos/moveon/demunderground for some time. For years, even.

      You're missing the point. Glenn Beck isn't calling Gore a Nazi for trying to reduce tail pipe emissions. He's calling Gore a Nazi for trying to institute a world order to force us to do so using the methods that he demands. That's the difference.

      All Glenn is saying is that "here's another point of view". For that, he's a Nazi? And Gores isn't?

      It was Chirac that called Kyoto and Global Warming the first "component of an authentic global governance". (The Hague, Netherlands, November 20, 2000).

      You are looking at honest statments by people who simply don't agree with you... and since you hate them so throughly, it can't just be that they disagree... no it has to be a secret conspiracy to impose their views by using Hitlerian techniques handed down by their great great grandfathers.

      That's a step beyond "simple disagreement" and into the land of delusional black helicopter thinking.

      Just look at it in broad strokes: Gore is trying to impose a system of governance, Beck is trying to stop one from being imposed. Which one is more Hitler-like?

      by tfl on Wed May 02, 2007 at 02:37:24 PM PST

      •  Gore vs Beck? That's an easy one.

        Beck is an ex-crackhead, ex-alcoholic, ADHD, whose mother and brother both committed suicide.

        Sort of like Hitler, who lost a brother, father, and mother by the time he was 19. Or Karl Rove whose mother killed herself and whose father left to lead a gay life. Or Dobson or Falwell with their common family histories of severe mental illness, murder, severe violence, drug addiction, etc etc

        Now that's not to say that someone's life has no value because they have ADHD, severe drug problems, and a family history of acute mental illness. Hell, I'll give Glenn a pat on the back for parlaying his crazy-drunk-talk routine into a career.

        But I certainly would not go to this person for advice.

        Besides, Beck is one of the leading voice calling for global race war ("WW3"), just like Charlie Manson holding his tribe of drug-addled teen runaways spellbound around the campfire with is predictions of "Helter Skelter." But where Charlie killed people in order to get the press' attention and jump start the race war, Beck IS the press and every night he cherry picks the news for even the tiniest war-on-christmas-where-are-the-green-napkins story or Islamofascist atrocity.

        But thanks for playing. All our players get a year's supply of Rice-A-Roni.

        by bernardpliers on Wed May 02, 2007 at 02:52:31 PM PST

        •  backgrounds like that

          in most progressive circles would get you sympathy and understanding. There'd be cheers for your courage and how much you accomplished, despite the difficulties in life. Having family members kill themselves is tragic. It doesn't "make one into a Hitler". But the sheer venom in your remarks is reserved for those that don't agree with you. For you, politics is all there is.

          I don't mind Glenn Beck; I have seen his tv show before... mostly because I appreciate things that "don't blend in". And he certainly doesn't on HLN. But in all the wacked out things I have ever heard him say, a "race war" was never ever ever the topic of conversation. You'd have to provide some sort of reference before dropping that kind of bomb. Race war, really? Like blacks on whites or will there be latinos involved? Which side will the "home team"? Is this a war like a "culture war" kind of war, or an actual "bombs and guns" kind? I'm really curious about this whole race war concept. Totally intriguing.

          As for not buying the "islamofacist threat". I mean, I don't know what to say...

          Seems to me that starting about 30 years ago, there have been a series of attacks against U.S. Property, Citizens, Soldiers that have been ever increasing in size, fatalities, frequency, and getting closer in proximity. The perpetrators all are from various countries and ethno backgrounds, but all share a common belief in Islam, an intense hatred of us, and have committed themselves to our anhilation. My source? Whenever they get together in groups, that's usually all they talk about.

          Please explain to me where I am wrong in that assessment?

          Look at that link above and look at the hundreds of incidents, and the thousands that have died. Your desire to just bury the head firmly in the sand pretend that nothing is going on is ridiculous. Your idea that anyone that is trying to raise the alarm is a Nazi of some kind is delusional.

          Especially, since radical Islam itself has some interesting roots in Nazi Germany.

          So, you'll defend a real Nazi... by calling your fellow American a Nazi... for warning you about the Nazi.

          Spock you ain't.

          by tfl on Wed May 02, 2007 at 11:11:42 PM PST

      •  So Is Gore Like Muslim-Nazi or a Different Kind?

        Because if Gore's like a Nazi and Muslims are like Nazis, are they the same kind of Nazis or are they like different kinds of Nazis. Or would the GOP say that they whole world is Nazis except Republicans!

        Either way the truth gets real easy at that point. Someone who thinks everyone else is crazy is the one that gets dragged off in a straitjacket. And that's the line the GOP pundits have been laying down for years: everyone in America and the rest of the world is crazy but them. An now that has evolved to everyone else is a Nazi but the GOP.

        by bernardpliers on Wed May 02, 2007 at 05:36:24 PM PST

        •  fascism

          Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests inferior to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on ethnic, religious, cultural, or racial attributes.

          -Wikipedia

          Does that sound more like Iran or America?

          Does that sound more like Osama or Bush?

          Now, Osama and the other Islamic radicals (who, of course don't exist) want to establish a Caliphate:

          A caliphate (from the Arabic خلافة or khilaafah), is the Islamic form of government representing the political unity and leadership of the Muslim world. The head of state's position (Caliph) is based on the notion of a successor to Prophet Muhammad's political authority; according to Sunnis ideally elected by the people or their representatives, and according to the Shia an Imamate chosen from the Ahl ul-Bayt.

          -Wikipedia

          Doesn't that sound like fun? Like having the Pope be President. Or, at least have his own hotline to the oval office.

          Now if you want to quibble about names... I mean, is it facist, or maybe just a little totalitarian? It's got some qualities of a Junta, but it also has the uniformity of the Jim Jones cult. You can argue definitions all day long. And that philosophical masturbation could keep you from doing anything about it for a long long time. But to say that these people don't exist and that they don't mean us harm is not only ludicrous, its dangerous.

          by tfl on Wed May 02, 2007 at 11:23:01 PM PST

          •  Hardly

            in most progressive circles would get you sympathy and understanding. There'd be cheers for your courage and how much you accomplished, despite the difficulties in life. Having family members kill themselves is tragic. It doesn't "make one into a Hitler". But the sheer venom in your remarks is reserved for those that don't agree with you. For you, politics is all there is.

            Whenever someone cites the wisdom of the crowd, I say "Go for it - write a diary making this point and see what sort of feedback you get."

            As an ex-cokehead, ex-alcoholic, ADHD, college dropout (?) with a profound hstory of mental illness, it's nice that he ha lifted himself out of the gutter, but he is not an expert on anything or capable of even basic decision making.

            But like I said, you go riht on ahead write a diary.

            This is basis of the GOP and its hard core of supporters - authoritarians are bred in households distorted by addiction and alcoholism. People who think our leaders are somehow normal grew up in denial over the mental illness of their own parents. People who cheer for torture were tortured by their parents. People who cry "treason" for someone exposing their leaders lie grew up concealing their parents addiction.

            by bernardpliers on Thu May 03, 2007 at 05:19:50 AM PST

          •  He said, she said

            Doesn't that sound like fun? Like having the Pope be President. Or, at least have his own hotline to the oval office.

            So would you also advocate putting JDAMs down the chimneys of half the megachurches in the US?  Because there's no shortage of dangerous and highly subversive verbage we could quote from them, and they already have that hotline.

            by bernardpliers on Thu May 03, 2007 at 05:23:25 AM PST