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 ...
I am still learning about Thompson, and the most important failure of which I am unaware is his campaign finance investigation.
Here is the Committee report:
http://www.senate.gov/~govt-aff/2.pdf
The investigation was a debacle in that White House, AFL-CIO, and numerous other entities simply gave Thompson’s Committee the finger and did not comply with subpoenas. The report blames the Majority Leader for setting a deadline of around nine months, which was enough time to drag everything out.
The debacle set a horrible precedent of letting people get away with ignoring Congressional investigations, and even if Thompson did oppose the deadline, he presumably made the decision not to actually sue to enforce any of the subpoenas. He was also responsible for the decision to make the investigation broad enough to threaten numerous Republican senators to avoid any charge of partisanship, which probably doomed the investigation from the git-go.
Personally, I am sick of Republicans who believe that bipartisanship is a virtue, as they are constantly taken to the cleaners by the Democrats. That is what I fear most about Thompson.
Yes, I am REALLY arguing that Hitler was not interested in ruling a one world Nazi government. Hitler’s goal, like Napoleon’s, was to dominate continental Europe.. Now....if you have a source to the contrary, please provide it (in capital letters or otherwise).
Didn't that pre-empt any move by the dems to charge partianship? I see nothing wrong with that strategy. Would you rather the committe got bogged down with side issues?
There's an interesting quote attributed to Hitler:
How can a minority “bog down” what the majority wants to do if the majority votes to limit the investigation to the White House? IMHO, if the Government had shut down on account of filibusters to prevent an investigation into Red Chinese funding of the 1996 election, Republicans would have gained enormous political capital.
Dictators like Saddam weren’t trying to create Utopia. For them it is all about power and what’s in it for them.
Communists become dictators believing they’re serving a higher purpose (which gives them the right to do anything) but they operate under the initial cloak of creating Utopia.
Fascist also become dictators and claim they are building Utopia as well with the same claim to serving a higher purpose with the same consequences. Their economic system is different than the communists but the end result is the same. The Communist party owns the means to production where they are in control. The Fascist party controls the means to production where they are in control. Both do so in their aim to create Utopia.
I’m going to pass on this one, not being familiar enough with the investigation.
Yeah, he must be a kook. Who other than a kook would give back his Congressional pension to the taxpayers? Why can’t he be more like that sane lobbyist Thompson who, when asked to help his clients like Aristide, takes the money without a second thought.
There are lot of bogus quotations floating around and that is one of them.
There are lot of bogus quotations floating around and that is one of them.
I used to be one of those sticklers for the definition of the word "facism". Even the definition in today's dictionary has been warped for political reasons.
If we want to be sticklers about the definition of the word "fascism" then it should be described as an "economic system" rather than a political system. And, of course, the stickler would associate Fascism not with Hitler but with it's classic proponent, Hitler's pal Mussolini.
The term itself had been distorted with time lest we start to realize that our own system is drifting towards that original definition (unholy alliance between government and business - which is why you have all that multicultural crap floating about in corporate America today.)
I don't see much of ANY of these brands of "fascism" in the Middle East. It's something new, and Americans don't seem to have the capacity to understand new things (which is why we're so strictly reactionary in dealing with the "War on Terror" (e.g. a guy attempts to explode his shoe on an airplane, so we have everybody boarding aircraft take off their shoes - with no thought to the possibility that next time it could be an exploding bra)).
I guess the countries of the Middle East might be able to be described as "Islamic dictatorships" - but unfortunately such terms don't get American's juices flowing like those terms associated with the Third Reich.
Now replace race with religion.Considering you've just completely changed the meaning of the term you could say it doesn't "fit".
Then what exactly doesn’t fit?
In summary: Fascist and Communist are the same in practice, and - IMO - "Islamo-fascist" is a very apt term. Hope this is helpfulNo. Think about it this way, chocolate and vanilla are both flavors of ice cream. They have a similar consistency, you eat them the same way etc... Does that mean they're the same thing?
You would rather play games with semantics than address the real issue, which is that Ron Paul is unfit to be president because he is blind to the danger that radical Islam poses to the West. Whether or not the jihadists who want to impose Islamic law on the entire world are actually fascists is really besides the point. Paul is hopelessly naive if he believes that the jihadists will leave us alone if we pull out of the Middle East and hide behind our borders. This alone disqualifies him to be president.Arguing about "semantics" is very important. Ron Paul is interesting because he exposes inconsistencies in modern conservative doctrine.
The totalitarians aim is more power for themselves not in building Utopia on earth. It is hard to get the little guy to fight for someone else's power short of having a gun pointed at their head.
Wedding religion to fascism, that is replacing the identity based on race with identity based on religion far better describes what we face. In the name of building Utopia on earth the true believers can be motivated to do anything no matter how terrible as the ends are so great that they justify any means. You won’t get that kind of dedication from the slaves of a strictly totalitarian government.
Totalitarianism isn’t enough to discribe it. It is only one facet.No. You fundamentally don't understand the meanings of the terms involved.
The totalitarians aim is more power for themselves not in building Utopia on earth. It is hard to get the little guy to fight for someone else's power short of having a gun pointed at their head.
Wedding religion to fascism, that is replacing the identity based on race with identity based on religion far better describes what we face. In the name of building Utopia on earth the true believers can be motivated to do anything no matter how terrible as the ends are so great that they justify any means. You won’t get that kind of dedication from the slaves of a strictly totalitarian government.
Dumb me...
Very nice summation. It is folly to cite dictionary definitions rather than viewing these philosophies in practice. In practice there is very little difference and only in superfluous details. As you said, what is the difference between the state owning the means of production (USSR, China) or exerting total control of the means of production (Nazis, Fascists, Clintonistas)?
Check this out: http://give-n-go.blogspot.com/2007/02/fascist-alliance.html
Very nice summation. It is folly to cite dictionary definitions rather than viewing these philosophies in practice. In practice there is very little difference and only in superfluous details. As you said, what is the difference between the state owning the means of production (USSR, China) or exerting total control of the means of production (Nazis, Fascists, Clintonistas)?Your whole theory and practice deal doesn't work either. Just giving something a name doesn't make it true.
Check this out: http://give-n-go.blogspot.com/2007/02/fascist-alliance.html
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.