Posted on 10/12/2007 12:48:13 AM PDT by neverdem
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.
The term "Islamic fascism" was popularized, though not coined, by Christopher Hitchens, who wrote in the aftermath of September 11 that the attacks represented "fascism with an Islamic face" - which was itself a play off of previous variations of the same phrase. Long known for his Marxist beliefs, Hitchens, who supported the invasion of Iraq, has since fallen out of favor with the left. But that hardly makes him a propagandist who uses the term with the intent of "generating fear" and trying to spread war.
Indeed, as William Safire pointed out last year, since 9/11 the Bush administration has gone out of its way to find a label for the threat behind the...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Paul’s response to Islamofascist Q is reason enough to demonstrate why the Republican Party should have a vetting process for who can and can not be a bona fide member. That would clearly exclude Paul (libertarian ideologue) and Guliani(liberal in BrooksBros suit) as CINOs’ and therefore NOT good Republican material.
If one wants to exhibit Liberal tendencies/policies then go join the Demorat’s “conservative” wing.
Without this vetting process there is no effective way to cull out the decievers and weakLinks (aka RINOs).
That said I still don't think Paul is the man to be President. I see goodness and honesty in him, but not the "true grit" required of the type of leader this nation is going to need. I see that only on Duncan Hunter.
Bevan devalues his entire argument with that line. But that's not what I'll comment on. Bevan's argument does stand even with that flaw in choice of words. Here is the problem, it is the redefinition by at least 33% of the word "fascismo" from every historical context that makes the term "islamofascism" into politically correct mumbo jumbo newspeak.
"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." [Robert O. Paxton, "The Anatomy of Fascism," 2004]
Here's the Problem. If you call it Islamofascism but refuse to confront their "traditional elites", still allow their "traditional elites" access to our capital markets, still allow the sons of "traditional elites" to attend our universities, allow their "traditional elite" migration into the US, UK, other Western states to preach from Mosques they fund and own our corporations.
Remove the Islamic part of Islamofascism, and the fascists are customers of and own large stakes of our finance markets.
Doing what you say would reduce the Republican party to less than 15% of the American electorate.
You could as easily revive the Whig party if you really want to carry the banner of a lost cause.
Thompson come to my mind when you mention “True Grit,” who more closely resembles the Duke.
Barking Moonbat ping.
"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."
Oh, come now. Is it REALLY "news" when a politician refuses to bad mouth his own voting base...?
What udder nonsense you spout. By any measure America is a solid conservative place. By making the candidates come along to those lines of thinking would take us a long way towards the public honesty and moral fortitude that most here at FR and others on so many talk shows complain about being absent in America.
When one allows(supports or encourages) only the choice between the lesser of two evils, the result is still evil. This fractured and conflicted conceited thinking must stop or all this effort is for nothing worthwhile. The enemies of the West and America will see to that.
You should know better before you start calling people who disagree with you “uneducated”.
Fascism is a political ideology which is well represented in Islamic movements today. Hitler’s Nazi Germany was based on “master race” fascism. The Islamic movement today is based on religious fascism.
And since you think he's "right on target" you are as big a nut as he is. To say that the term was created to perpetuate war is an affront to decent people simply trying to call a spade a spade.
If only the 25th Amendment applied to the House they’d haul this loon away in a straight jacket.
true grit” required of the type of leader this nation is going to need. I see that only on Duncan Hunter.
MR HUNTER DOES EXHIBIT: TRUE GRIT
SOMEbody should tell dr. ron that this is NOT, as johnny edwards says a ‘bumper sticker’ war...these folks are for REAL..dangerous dedicated jihadis....he should shaddup on the downplaying of our extant danger.....i recently read where an insider journalist once camped out with them in afganistan....seems they set up their white tents on an open plane in the mts there..when the imbed pointed out to one of them that, coalition bombers were patrolling the skys, the tents were white,in plain sight and therefore, under these circumstances, they might be bombed and therefore might no longer live....the jihadi responded...’live? live? we didn’t come here to LIVE we came here to DIE’
even the NAZIS didn’t say stuff like that, mr paul...i’d say that makes the jihadi’s even MORE dangerous than the nazis as PBS says ‘ALL THINGS CONSIDERED’
in short we don’t need any claptrap about how some folks aint as bad as other folks....we need calls for alarm...the true alarm that is warrented in this global struggle....
in short ‘i aint votin for him’
That's like saying "At least Dr. Kevorkian only kills elderly or terminally ill patients, and not little kids."
How so?
Every political party has their own Dennis Kucinich.
Hitler’s Nazi Germany was based on “master race” fascism. The Islamic movement today is based on religious fascism.Osama isn't a fascist, he's a totalitarian. There's a big difference.
I just love these Ron Paul threads. On almost every other issue, Freepers are of one mind, and it gets kind of boring preaching to the choir. But, bring up Ron Paul and we go straight to Hitler.
If you like some of Dr Paul’s ideas, why did you post a thread with such a nasty title?
Your screen name is “neverdem”... well, the Dems over on “Democratic Underwear” are all rejoicing today at Al Gore’s trifecta - - Oscar, Emmy and Nobel and here you are on FR sliming the cleanest and best of all the GOP candidates! Ironic timing. Sad, too...
Just my humble opinion; no offense intended.
Religious fascism seems well suited to describe it. It is collectivist and in service to the power of the group that controls things in an area.
Where the Taliban and or al Qaeda run things, a type of religious fascism does rule. Remember Afghanistan before we took on that government? Well, in many places that same mentality has taken over and the results are the same. Al Qaeda ran much of al Anbar province in Iraq for a time. Was it a country, a state? No, it was an area that was controlled by al Qaeda. And in that area, they were the power. That power brutally enforced a type of religion based fascism.
Call it, not fascism but totalitarianism if you will; the results are the same.
Osama is not a national leader. He’s like their high priest. That doesn’t make it “not fascism”. It makes “religious fascism” an apt description.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.