Balkinization  

Saturday, December 16, 2006

A Duty to Remember, and Speak

Scott Horton

"The most savage and numerous crimes planned and committed by the Nazis were those against the Jews. Those in Germany in 1933 numbered about 500,000. In the aggregate, they had made for themselves positions which excited envy, and had accumulated properties which excited the avarice of the Nazis. They were few enough to be helpless and numerous enough to be held up as a menace.

"Let there be no misunderstanding about the charge of persecuting Jews. What we charge against these defendants is not those arrogances and pretensions which frequently accompany the intermingling of different peoples and which are likely, despite the honest efforts of government, to produce regrettable crimes and convulsions. It is my purpose to show a plan and design, to which all Nazis were fanatically committed, to annihilate all Jewish people. These crimes were organized and promoted by the Party leadership, executed and protected by the Nazi officials, as we shall convince you by written orders of the Secret State Police itself.

"The persecution of the Jews was a continuous and deliberate policy. It was a policy directed against other nations as well as against the Jews themselves. Anti-Semitism was promoted to divide and embitter the democratic peoples and to soften their resistance to the Nazi aggression.

"Anti-Semitism also has been aptly credited with being a "spearhead of terror." The ghetto was the laboratory for testing repressive measures. Jewish property was the first to be expropriated, but the custom grew and included similar measures against anti-Nazi Germans, Poles, Czechs, Frenchmen, and Belgians. Extermination of the Jews enabled the Nazis to bring a practiced hand to similar measures against Poles, Serbs, and Greeks. The plight of the Jew was a constant threat to opposition or discontent among other elements of Europe's population—pacifists, conservatives, Communists, Catholics, Protestants, Socialists. It was in fact, a threat to every dissenting opinion and to every non-Nazi's life.

"The persecution policy against the Jews commenced with nonviolent measures, such as disfranchisement and discriminations against their religion, and the placing of impediments in the way of success in economic life. It moved rapidly to organized mass violence against them, physical isolation in ghettos, deportation, forced labor, mass starvation, and extermination. The Government, the Party formations indicted before you as criminal organizations, the Secret State Police, the Army, private and semi-public associations, and "spontaneous" mobs that were carefully inspired from official sources, were all agencies that were concerned in this persecution. Nor was it directed against individual Jews for personal bad citizenship or unpopularity. The avowed purpose was the destruction of the Jewish people as a whole, as an end in itself, as a measure of preparation for war, and as a discipline of conquered peoples.

"The conspiracy or common plan to exterminate the Jew was so methodically and thoroughly pursued, that despite the German defeat and Nazi prostration this Nazi aim largely has succeeded. Only remnants of the European Jewish population remain in Germany, in the countries which Germany occupied, and in those which were her satellites or collaborators. Of the 9,600,000 Jews who lived in Nazi-dominated Europe, 60 percent are authoritatively estimated to have perished. Five million seven hundred thousand Jews are missing from the countries in which they formerly lived, and over 4,500,000 cannot be accounted for by the normal death rate nor by immigration; nor are they included among displaced persons. History does not record a crime ever perpetrated against so many victims or one ever carried out with such calculated cruelty."


- Justice Robert H. Jackson, Statement for the Prosecution, Nov. 21, 1945 (hat-tip: John Barrett)

Last night was the first night of Hanukkah; and in another day Christians light the third candle of Advent. There are many things commemorated with the lighting of these candles, and to them we should all add a remembrance of the Holocaust and its victims. There is urgent reason for this – the Iranian president has assembled a group of Holocaust deniers in Tehran and for the first time, a state has given formal sanction to denial of the Holocaust. This is a grave offense against the memory of those who died. But more important is the threat it presents to our collective future. As Orwell taught us, those who would control our future start by controlling the past.

Certainly there are those who would dismiss this entire event as the kookiness of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But his attitudes are pernicious and may have profound and lethal consequences for his own people, his region and the world beyond. As Ann Applebaum writes,

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is deadly serious. Holocaust denial is his personal passion, not just a way of taunting Israel, and it's based in his personal interpretation of history. Earlier this year, in a distinctly eerie open letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, he lauded the great achievements of German culture and assaulted "the propaganda machinery after World War II that has been so colossal that [it] has caused some people to believe that they are the guilty party." Such views hearken back to the 1930s, when the then-Shah of Iran was an admirer of Hitler's notion of the "Aryan master race," to which Persians were meant to belong. Ahmadinejad himself counts as a mentor an early revolutionary who was heavily influenced by wartime Nazi propaganda. It shows.


The first step in a defense against repetition of the Holocaust is a simple one that everyone can take without sacrifice: it is to remember. The second step is no less difficult, and it is to be vocal in your remembrance, and to criticize the deniers. This is the time to do it.

Comments:

I believe Admadinejad is using the conference as a psychological operation against the West and Israel and that is the main purpose of his line of argument. It is Karl Rovian wedge politics on the international plane trying to peel off the closet or overt anti-semites to the Iranian side.

The Holocaust is then being instrumentalized again. Scott's piece helps us to remember the evil of it and Adminejad's approach to me warns us of the danger of instrumentalizing evil.

Best,
Ben
 

The first step in a defense against repetition of the Holocaust is a simple one that everyone can take without sacrifice: it is to remember. The second step is no less difficult, and it is to be vocal in your remembrance, and to criticize the deniers. This is the time to do it.

I am encouraged that folks are finally beginning to realize that Iran is being run by an Islamic fascist theocracy who thinks that the Holocaust was and continues to be a nifty idea. However, while it is well and good to cluck our disapproval of these thugs and their views, the next question is really what affirmative actions do you propose to stop the next Holocaust.

Hitler cared nothing for disapproving popular opinion in the West and neither do the Islamic fascists. The next Holocaust will not be stopped by disapproving words.

I would observe that Justice Jackson was only able to make his opening statement after the Allies fought and won a war to defeat the European fascists, during which 6 million jews were murdered in the camps and tens of millions of others in the war.

I would further note that, if Hitler obtained the atomic bomb as Iran is attempting to do so now, his fascist regime might have won the war, continued their mass murders (perhaps with the assistance of a nuclear bomb or two in places like London and Moscow), and Justice Jackson would not have been able to make his fine opening statement.

We often state that we would never again allow another Holocaust. However, despite disapproving words, we have done so on multiple occasions in the USSR, China, Cambodia, Rawanda and Sudan to name a few. Tens of millions more died in those subsequent Holocausts.

Thus, the question stands - what are we willing to do, if anything, to stop the Islamic fascists from perpetrating the next Holocaust?
 

I wonder how Mr. Depalma distinguishes between the "Islamic fascists" he sees fighting in Iraq, the "Islamic fascists" he sees leading in Iran, and the "Islamic fascists" he sees trying to regain control of Afghanistan. Clearly, not every Islamic person or state is fascist, but I've yet to see Mr. Depalma make a detailed argument for inclusion of these groups into the same category. I'm not even clear on what Mr. Depalma means by "fascism" in the first place, and I suspect he has the same problem.

I point this out because Mr. Depalma emphasizes that we must act affirmatively to "stop the Islamic fascists from perpetrating the next Holocaust." However, the essentialism inherent in his posts on the topic evokes the types of propaganda used to encourage people to the very kinds of action he claims here to oppose. Whether or not he intends it, the continual and repetitive pairing of "Islamic" with "fascist" casts all Muslims into a single unsavory pile. It helps to define the enemy, make him more visible in the world, and ultimately easier to excise.

An outside observer, noting our recent tendency to restrict liberties, form concentration camps, and take preemptive military action, as well as massive civilian body counts, might very well suspect that the "next Holocaust" will be (or is being) perpetrated by us.
 

Scott,

You're blogging on the wrong site. Their idealism is praiseworthy but their devotion to abstract ideals over common sense is suicicidal.

PMS Chicago,

Thank you for the Al Qaeda propaganda.
 

Thank you for the Al Qaeda propaganda.

I take strong exception to this remark. I fully support our efforts against Al-Qaeda and actual terrorist organizations. Speaking out against the use of essentialism in the political sphere is not the same as supporting the enemy, especially when the enemy is such a small part of a much larger whole.

Furthermore, my post runs quite contrary to Al-Qaeda's propaganda in that it emphasizes the fact that there are plenty of internal divisions in the Muslim world (e.g. nationality, religious sect, ethnicity, class, etc.) that influence the way people think and act--to think that people are mindless drones is very dangerous. Al-Qaeda would prefer that you think there is no disconnect between their ideology and that of all Muslims. All of their public statements are designed to downplay the oddity of the organization and emphasize their communion with the Muslim world as a whole. In October 2001, Bin Laden said, "This battle is not between al Qaeda and the U.S. This is a battle of Muslims against the global crusaders." But he's wrong. This is and should be a battle between al Qaeda and the US.

NK, when we start to buy into the "all Muslims are alike" ideology of our particular enemy, we play right into his hands. Frankly, I would expect more from someone who laments the inability of our incoming House intelligence chairman to say whether al-Qaeda members are Sunni or Shiite.
 

I declare shenanigans on NK. Smearing a respected fellow poster, is way out of line. Especially when lacking any, any, kind of substance.
 

Forgive me Anne and PMS Chicago but I objected to this phrase in PMS's comment:

"An outside observer, noting our recent tendency to restrict liberties, form concentration camps, and take preemptive military action, as well as massive civilian body counts, might very well suspect that the "next Holocaust" will be (or is being) perpetrated by us."

In the context of Mr. Horton's post, I saw it not so much as a criticism of our methods in the war against terror but a minimization of the 12 million murdered in the Nazi death camps and the twice that many slaughtered by the advancing Nazi armies and in the occupied countries.

There is nothing that we are doing or are sanely likely to do which can be compared to the Holocaust. Nothing.
 

There is nothing that we are doing or are sanely likely to do which can be compared to the Holocaust. Nothing.

I understand and agree with your objections in terms of scale, but I stand by my remarks. I don't think it minimizes the horror of the Holocaust to suggest that the same underlying logic, if not the same action, is in play today; in fact, I would argue that it only increases the horror that the world hasn't learned its lesson, and shows no signs of doing so.
 

As I said the idealism of the posters and commenters of this site is praiseworthy. I will do my best to be less abrupt and snarky in my future comments.
 

Apology accepted.

I'd say the whole comparison with nazi Germany started when the administration began referring to Islamists as Islamo-fascists and noted that they were out to get rid of Israel. This was then countered by saying that actually the methods employed by this administration resemble fascist methods more than those of the alleged moslim fascists.

I don't think that anyone is trying to minimize the scale of the holocaust by comparing the methods.
 

Bart Depalma:"Thus, the question stands - what are we willing to do, if anything, to stop the Islamic fascists from perpetrating the next Holocaust?"

If we try, as we are doing, to be the police of the world, we will only succeed to spreading ourselves out so thin that we accomplish little to nothing. How many bad governments can we topple? Quite a number, given our abilities it would seem. How many countries, governments, and societies can we rebuild? We've currently got our hands full with just two, and its questionable that we can handle them - its looking more like a gamble.

If only the problem were as simple to solve as toppling fascist governments before they get a chance to do harm. We may in some cases need to take action, but if we're not smart about it, we only engage in self-defeating crusades, unable to respond to more serious threats elsewhere, or expending valuable international political capitol needed to effectively respond to such problems when they arise.
 

Fareed Zakaria's comment today on John Yoo's latest is pertinent to this thread:

When we suspend the writ of habeas corpus, we cast aside these distinctive weapons and trade them for the traditional tools of dictatorships — arbitrary arrests, indefinite imprisonments and aggressive interrogations. Will this trade really help us prevail?
 

@nk: I am amazed that you called PMS on his comparison to the holocaust, but that you gave Bart a free ride when he asked what "what [we] are willing to do, if anything, to stop the Islamic fascists from perpetrating the next Holocaust?"

Furthermore you did not scold PMS for belitteling the Holocaust, no you sad that he made Al Qaeda propaganda. It is one thing to resist belitteling the Holocaust (which you did not in your reply) but quite another to say that one is actively supporting Al Qaeda (by equating the methods used in the holocaust with the methods used by this administration).

Come to think of it: you apologized for something you did not say. This is like an inversed straw man: apologizing for a heinous statement one did not make in order not having to apologize for another preposterous statement.

Apologies unaccepted.
 

Anne,

Let me be clear as possible. There is no equivalent to the Holocaust. Not Stalin's starvation of the kulaks. Not Pol Pot's killing fields. Not Darfur. Not Rwanda. Not the Congo. Not Nagasaki or Hiroshima. NOTHING.

I did not call Bart DePalma out, because I agree with him. The Islamofascists want to exterminate, not only Israel, but every Jew off the face of the earth.

Just so you know where I'm coming from and I apologized only for my tone not my position.
 

nk,

Good God, what is wrong with you, sir? Your position is as evil and despicable as those you profess to deplore.

Let's assume for a moment, for purposes of discussion only, that you and Mr. dePalma are correct in your conclusions about Mr. Ahmadinejad's objectives vis-a-vis Israel (I neither admit nor concede the correctness of those conclusions). If containment is dismissed as a viable option (and people who think as you do seem to have dismissed containment as a viable option), then the only logical next step seems to be pre-emptive genocide.
 

Not necessarily "preemptive genocide" but the minute Iran acquires nuclear weapons it becomes a legitimate target for a preemptive nuclear strike. It is too faint a hope that it will refrain from using them out of love of "peace on earth and goodwill to all". Or (sarcasm alert) that it does not have enough enablers among the left in this country to get away with it.
 

Thought so. You stand by your attack that PMS propagates Al Qaeda. In some weird way you now mingle this with you fear that Iran will exterminate the jews. Are you now saying that Iran supports Al Qeada?

Apart from watching your tone, you need a reality check.

By the way, as far as I know, Iran opposes the state of Israel (which I don't agree with) and not jews. Iran is the arab country with the largest number of jews. No exterimination there. As a proper neocon you conflate opposition to the existence to the state of Israel with opposition to the existence of jews.

If noting this difference amounts to supporting Al Qeada according to you, so be it.
 

For Bart... Remember that play by Becket Waiting for Godot? We're waiting...
 

@nk: could you explain to me how having nuclear weapons would contribute to exterminating "every jew off the face of the earth"? I would see some importance, having all this jewish relatives not living in Israel (or Iran)...
 

PMS_Chicago said...

I wonder how Mr. Depalma distinguishes between the "Islamic fascists" he sees fighting in Iraq, the "Islamic fascists" he sees leading in Iran, and the "Islamic fascists" he sees trying to regain control of Afghanistan. Clearly, not every Islamic person or state is fascist, but I've yet to see Mr. Depalma make a detailed argument for inclusion of these groups into the same category. I'm not even clear on what Mr. Depalma means by "fascism" in the first place, and I suspect he has the same problem.

pms, I am on the road in Florida visiting in laws so I only have a few more minutes at this free wi fi site to chat. However, I believe I have a detailed multiple post response to these very questions during the past 2-3 weeks. I apologize, but you will have to check out my past posts to find this.

In short, there are two groups of Islamic fascists who share the common the common goal of establishing a theocratically pure totalitarian state based on strict adherence to what they consider to be religious law and both groups are willing to commit mass murder of infidels to achieve their goals.

The largest group are Sunni Wahabbis (sp?) seeking to establish a world wide Caliphate and the others are Shia who are attempting to pave the way for the return of the Missing Imam and the end days.

I point this out because Mr. Depalma emphasizes that we must act affirmatively to "stop the Islamic fascists from perpetrating the next Holocaust." However, the essentialism inherent in his posts on the topic evokes the types of propaganda used to encourage people to the very kinds of action he claims here to oppose.

While propaganda is an extreme version of a persuasive argument, all persuasive arguments like the one I use are not propaganda. Propaganda is a mixture of lies and truth meant to slander an opponent and rally opinion against the opponent. I presented facts based on the Iranian statements to convince the folks here that the threat is real.

Darn, the wife just came in to get me...

Later.
 

I did a bit of digging, and I think I can put together at least a rough sketch of Mr. Depalma's conceptualization of "Islamic fascism."

Fascism is a tactic or political ideology that has a pure state as its telos, whether it be the racially pure state proposed by Nazi Germany or the theologically pure state espoused by the "Islamic fascists."

The specific procedures for arriving at the fascist telos involve invoking a commonality "like race or religion," and then blaming problems on an other, using that distinction as justification for dehumanizing and murdering the other.

The specific case of Islamic fascism is one that cross-cuts different sects and nations. While it is "primarily fundamentalist Sunni," it also has proponents among the Shi'a theocracy in Iran.

The differences in sect change the endgame a bit, though: the Sunnis would like to establish a worldwide Caliphate that starts in the Middle East, "progressing into Europe and finally covering the world." The Shi'a position is a bit different, as they hope to pave the way for the return of the twelfth Imam (and, incidentally, the second coming of Christ).

However, these differences fall by the wayside in terms of direct action, as both groups share a common "other": the "US particularly and the West in general."

In short, this movement represents a growing threat that must be nipped in the bud before it metastasizes into a viable threat to our overall safety (i.e. able to use nuclear weapons against Western targets).

In order to deal with the fascist threat, we must "check and degrade the enemy's current military ability to attack US interests and win the ideological war over the long term until the enemy can no longer replenish its ranks."

To win the ideological war, we should use implement "political and economic freedom" in the defeated country, for "free countries do not attack one another and provide an alternative for state dependence and worship for freed citizenry."

To sum up, our strategy for defeating Islamic fascism should be to pre-emptively disarticulate connections between states and religion through military action, and install a new government that ensures personal freedoms that provide an attractive alternative to joining Sunni and Shi'a fundamentalist movements.


Is that a fair summary?
 

To sum up, our strategy for defeating fascism should be to pre-emptively disarticulate connections between states and religion through military action, and install a new government...

Starting in the US?
 

It's been noted elsewhere today that this was the same Justice Jackson who was quoted by Newt Gingrich yesterday on MTP in defense of censoring "jihadist" websites. (The infamous Terminello "not a suicide pact" sentence.)
 

@KipEsquire: Can you post a link? I'm having trouble finding context on this. Thanks!
 

Here you go Robert: Terminiello v. Chicago. It's in Jackson's dissent, penultimate line of his opinion.
 

"Bart" DePalma said:

In short, there are [...] fascists who share the common the common goal of establishing a theocratically pure totalitarian state based on strict adherence to what they consider to be religious law and both groups are willing to commit mass murder of infidels to achieve their goals.

Yep. Here ya go....

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DePalma lectures us on Islamic theology:

... the others are Shia who are attempting to pave the way for the return of the Missing Imam and the end days.

Anything like the folks that are trying to instigate a wider Mideast war culminating in a final battle in Megiddo to pave the way for the return of the "Prince of Peace" (along with the conversion or death of their erstwhile 'allies', the Jews)?

Of course, it's beyond me as to why anyone would think that their own actions (including murder, as seems appropriate to them) would have any effect on something fore-ordained by some deity. In fact, such an idea seems rather blasphemous, dontcha think? But I'm interested in details here, "Bart". Any documentation as to this insidious plot by the Shi'ite "Islamofascists"? (like this, perhaps? Or just look at Tim LaHaye's tripe...).

Projection, ya think?

Cheers,
 

pms_chicago @ 11:33:

Sounds about right. I think you found "Bart"'s 'talking points' memo. What's the source?

Cheers,
 

PMS_Chicago said...

I did a bit of digging, and I think I can put together at least a rough sketch of Mr. Depalma's conceptualization of "Islamic fascism."

....Is that a fair summary?


Pretty fair summary apart from this last paragraph of yours...

To sum up, our strategy for defeating Islamic fascism should be to pre-emptively disarticulate connections between states and religion through military action, and install a new government that ensures personal freedoms that provide an attractive alternative to joining Sunni and Shi'a fundamentalist movements.

I posted that the cure for Islamic fascism is the same as prior totalitarianisms - freedom and democracy. This does not necessarily require military removal of the totalitarian regime. (See Reagan's campaign against the Soviet Empire).

Also, you appear to imply that any regime which is not completely secular should be removed by military force. There are two reasons this is not necessary.

To start, religion per se is not the problem. Rather, the use of religion to advance fascism is the problem.

Additionally, the strict separation of state and religion is not necessary for a democracy. Our own nation had a vibrant democracy for a century and a half before the Supreme Court took a line out of context from one of Jefferson's letters and changed the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment from a prohibition against forming a state religion to a command to banish religion from the public sphere.
 

Bart: (See Reagan's campaign against the Soviet Empire).

You remind me of certain quaint folks I have met who assume H.P.Lovecraft's "Necronomicon" must really exist, or, similarly for Tolkein's "Red Book of Westermarch". At a certain age, however, one learns not to believe all the fairy tales one reads. I understand how appealing, how romantic it would be to see your actor fellow as a great hero who defeated The Evil Empire(tm). But seriously, how old are you?
 

Also, you appear to imply that any regime which is not completely secular should be removed by military force. There are two reasons this is not necessary.

To start, religion per se is not the problem. Rather, the use of religion to advance fascism is the problem.

Additionally, the strict separation of state and religion is not necessary for a democracy.


Yes, but you're speaking very generally. Democracy itself obviously cannot do the work alone; most recognizably fascist governments pay lip service to democratic principles. So, some political reorganization is surely in order.

Moreover, democracy cannot cure "Islamic fascism" if the latter is conceptualized as something that takes place in several different states and competing non-state organizations. Elected officials of one state cannot change the policies of another, and may or may not have the ability to direct non-state organizations (i.e. Iran's relationship to Hizbollah and Al-Qaeda, respectively).

This underscores the primary problem I have with the "Islamic fascism" conceptualization: in contrast to examples bound by geographic territory and influenced by specific historical trajectories (like German or Italian fascism), it links disparate and sometimes warring states, groups, and people together through the common ground of Islam. Unlike Germany or Italy, Islam is a belief system without borders, and is extremely resistant to physical invasion.

The secondary problem I have with lumping all of these separate groups under the heading "Islamic fascism" is the corporate nature of fascism, in both the collective and business sense. Fascism, as you note, requires a collective identity, but the particular states and groups that you cite are incompatible, and working together temporarily to defeat a common enemy is insufficient collectivity.

There is also a linking of business and government inherent in fascism that I think remains to be proven in these cases. The notable exception is Iran, and there's much more support for saying "Iranian fascism" instead of "Islamic fascism," given the political conditions in that particular country.

"Islamic fascism" essentializes and demonizes an entire world religion. To use such phrases buys into bin Laden's worldview of a clash between Islam and the crusaders.
 

"Bart" DePalma said:

Our own nation had a vibrant democracy for a century and a half before the Supreme Court took a line out of context from one of Jefferson's letters and changed the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment from a prohibition against forming a state religion to a command to banish religion from the public sphere.

"Bart" thinks that anti-establishment jurisprudence consists of one line taken out of context. OTOH, he probably believes this kind of one-liner too:

""Religion is the basis and foundation of government." (purportedy James Madison)

Or this two-liner:

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments." (purportedly James Madison again).

Here's some -- ummm, "background" -- on that. More here and here and here.

Why, it looks like David Barton et al subscribe to the "Bart" DePalma Distinguished School For Manufacturing Facts And Distorting History.....

Cheers,
 

PMS_Chicago said...

Moreover, democracy cannot cure "Islamic fascism" if the latter is conceptualized as something that takes place in several different states and competing non-state organizations...Unlike Germany or Italy, Islam is a belief system without borders, and is extremely resistant to physical invasion.

Communism and fascism also covered dozens of states. Thus, you have to democratize them all.

In the case of NGO movements like al Qaeda, the purpose of democratization is not only to stop state sponsorship of the movement but also to give potential recruits a voice and opportunity outside of the movement. Fascism thrives by offering power to those who feel powerless.

The secondary problem I have with lumping all of these separate groups under the heading "Islamic fascism" is the corporate nature of fascism, in both the collective and business sense. Fascism, as you note, requires a collective identity, but the particular states and groups that you cite are incompatible, and working together temporarily to defeat a common enemy is insufficient collectivity.

German, Italian and Japanese fascism were all different but they united against common enemies.

As I pointed out in the post which you paraphrased, I doubt that the Sunni and Shia Islamic fascist movements will unite any time soon. However, they do cooperate against their common enemies, the US and EU.

"Islamic fascism" essentializes and demonizes an entire world religion. To use such phrases buys into bin Laden's worldview of a clash between Islam and the crusaders.

I cannot agree.

Correctly identifying Islamic fascism and its goals no more demonizes all of Islam than does criticism of the Christian crusades to conquer the Holy Land somehow demonize all of Christianity.

Nor does simply taking bin Laden and all the other Islamic fascist leaders at their word justify their world view. The world would have been far better off if we had taken Hitler seriously in the 30s and dealt with him then. Ignoring Hitler did not delegitimize him in the eyes of his followers.
 

"Bart DePalma:

Correctly identifying Islamic fascism and its goals no more demonizes all of Islam than does criticism of the Christian crusades to conquer the Holy Land somehow demonize all of Christianity.

"Bart" sure does miss his pinko commie boogy-men under every bed. So sad the cold war is over. "Be afwaid. Be wewwy afwaid. We're hunting wabbits ... so be vewy qwiet, please....."

For the record, "Bart" has put together no consistent definition of who is (and who is not) an Islamic "fascist", what makes them so, why we should care any more than we do about Richard Butler, Matt Haleet el, or how there's any kind of comparison to Nazis worth more than a millisecond of an actual hstorian's time.

But that's not his aim. His aim is to make us (or someone) sign on to the "Great Islamofascist Threat" bulltwadley that the foaming RW has been flogging for some time now in a desperate attempt to convince people (LOL) that we should trust them to deal with these phantom menaces. Just one word: "Iraq".

Cheers,

Cheers,
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home