Fascism, among other things, entails a state transformed into a religion conjoined with a commitment to the utter abnegation of the individual, and particularly the individual will.
Islamist fascism and Mussolini’s fascism are alike:
The fascist conception of life is a religious one, in which man is viewed in his immanent relation to a higher law, endowed with an objective will transcending the individual and raising him to conscious membership in a spiritual society. Those who perceive nothing beyond opportunistic considerations in the religious policy of the fascist regime fail to realize that fascism is not only a system of government but also above all a system of thought.
– Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism
Fascism sees in the world not only those superficial material aspects in which man appears as an individual, standing by himself, self-centered, subject to natural law which instinctively urges him toward a life of selfish momentary pleasure; it sees not only the individual but the nation and the country; individual and generations bound together by a moral law, with common traditions and a mission which, suppressing the instinct for life closed in a brief circle of pleasure, builds up a higher life, founded on duty, a life free from the limitations of time and space, in which the individual by self-sacrifice, the renunciation of self-interest, by death itself can achieve that purely spiritual existence in which his value as a man consists.
– Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism
The conception is therefore a spiritual one, arising from [a] general reaction of the century against . . . flaccid materialistic positivism . . ..
– Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism
The State, as conceived of and as created by fascism, is a spiritual and moral fact in itself, since its political, juridical, and economic organization of the nation is a concrete thing: and such an organization must be in its origins and development a manifestation of the spirit.
– Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism
Fascism, among other things, entails a state transformed into a religion conjoined with a commitment to the utter abnegation of the individual, and particularly the individual will. The fascist is never an individual, but always a connected tentacle of some Holy-yet-earthly State, and infused with that State’s generalized yearning to annihilate all those individual heretics in opposition to the religiosity of that State. All who are not tethered to that fascist State must therefore either die or soon become tethered.
Jews, Conservative Christians and free market, individualistic Americans, however, are not easily tethered to the state itself as God. We believe in individual autonomy rather than divine coercion. We, or at least we who have not been gulled into the despair of the Reductionist Liberals — for whom all morality, beauty and even divinity are merely manifestations of social and psychological determinism – we conservatives are optimists. And we still embrace Liberal Democracy, which is to say we conservatives still believe in a free will. We who remain the unabashed enemies of fascism continue to believe in real choice, the choice of good and the choice of sin. We embrace the will rather than hate it. And that is what today’s fascists despise about Liberal Democracies, what they despise about you and me: we conservative members of Liberal Democracies embrace free will and thus we embrace creativity materialized via free enterprise.
Today’s fascists, on the other hand, who this time around also happen to be Arab Islamists rather than German or Italian Christians, hate the will. They reject the individual’s ability to create the beautiful and the craven. For the fascist the will of the State is identical to the will of the individual. And today’s Islamist fascists, like their fascist forefathers, would be more than pleased to convert us to their State will or kill us in order to crush our individual free will, the human essence we in Liberal Democracies still hold so dear.
So the fascist state is not merely fundamentalist. Though fundamentalism may be a necessary condition for fascism, fundamentalism is certainly not a sufficient condition for fascism. Many who are fundamentalists are neither fascist nor dangerous nor even particularly frightening. Fundamentalist Christians, for example, believe the rest of us wrong, but they also believe we could choose to be right, if only we would. Born-again Christians hold free will so dear, in fact, they even hold themselves individually responsible for their own birth. So, coerced submission to God is utterly rejected by fundamentalist Christians. Coerced love of God is equally rejected by fundamentalist Jews, and likely even by most fundamentalist Muslims. But even more important, coerced submission, like coerced love, is utterly antithetical to Liberal Democracies including the theistic people, agnostic people and even atheist people, thriving within Liberal Democracies.
Fascism, on the other hand, is herd morality opposed to individual liberty. All is coercion. All is submission: love, morality, obedience, religion and death. And the genocide of those heretical peoples, like the Jews, who refuse to be coerced, the destruction of those horrid people, like the Jews, who in any way admire individual creativity of will is an absolute good for fascists. The fascist must crush the individual will and all who stand for the freedom of the individual will. For those who are opposed to the coerced religion of this state, the Islamic fascist State, are those who also oppose the spirit of the Islamic fascist’s holiest of holies: the mystical melding of Man and God into the State.
Those who are opposed to this fascist world view, however, those who embrace individual freedoms including, if not especially, the freedom of speech and the freedom of the marketplace of ideas and things, must oppose this.
So I agree with how conservatives frame this war. We are at war with Islamist fascists. This is the conflict between Liberal Democracies and a new oppressive variety of fascism. We are in a war to protect the freedom of the individual will from the coercion of the state. This is a war to allow each of us within all the families of Liberal Democracy to pursue the maximum creativity of our individual wills and let the fruits of our creativity whither or grow freely in the marketplace of ideas and things. This truly is the war of Liberal Democracy against the infinite despair of fascist theocratic reductionism. This is a war that brooks no appeasement by the despairing.
Do you realize how silly the neoconservative use of the word ‘Islamofascist’ sounds? It not only shows how desperate they are, but it also is just historically inaccurate. This is just another adoption of a Marxist criticism by neoconservatives, not to mention their other Marxists terms (e.g. “regime change”). It is not coincidence that the neocons formulating these terms are former Marxists themselves, now ushering in a new age of Big Brother.
I think the authentic conservative Daniel Larison sums it up best:
“The questions every conservative should ask the Republican who barks Islamofascist at him are these: “Why fascist? Why make the comparison with fascism? Why do you, Republican, have this obsession with the word ‘fascist’ that seems more appropriate to a far-left liberal? Could it be that you have adopted leftist categories of thinking in your quest to spread “democratic revolution”? Can it be that all of this prattling about “ideological nations” has knocked a few screws loose and sent you into Soviet propaganda mode?” Indeed, I have to wonder whether we will soon hear about Islamocounterrevolutionaries (try saying that one five times fast!) and Islamoenemiesofthepeople. Conservatives should be very worried that this kind of language has become part of their lexicon and should be appalled at the people who have been propagating it, not just because it is inaccurate and sloppy, but because it betrays a strange affinity to old Marxist argumentation that was historically used as a means of distorting the truth about political enemies and Soviet policy. This sort of rhetoric should not have any part in formulating U.S. foreign policy today.”
http://larison.org/2006/08/31/islamofascism-may-not-be-true-but-at-least-its-dramatic/
Much like the word gay to define turd tampers and stool pushers.
The use of the term fascist or Islamofascist or Islamic Fascist by the neo-conservatives and the Bushies in describing the Islamic fundamentalists of today is an act of desperation as an unpleasant election comes ’round the bend and the issues favor the Democrats. Just as the Utah Jazz stayed with the Malone-Stockton pick and roll for seventeen years until it wouldn’t work any longer, the Bush regime plans on pummeling the Democrats with security issues until the Democrats can defeat the Bushies. It’s that simple. Expect the mantra of Islamofascist to continue for the next nine weeks; it’s the bread and butter play in the Rove playbook.
Fascism is a secular religion while Islamic fundamentalism is a religious concept. The regimentation of each and the limitations of rights that each foists upon their followers make them similar, that is true. However, most regimes in world history since the Age of Agriculture dawned about 7000 years ago have been some sort of variation of what is now practiced in Iran and Saudi Arabia and what was once practiced in Taliban Afghanistan. Ancient Egypt and ancient Sparta were as authoritarian as Islamic fundamentalism while many Medieval Christian monarchies embraced at least some of the tendencies of modern Islamic fundamentalism. Even Puritan England in Oliver Cromwell’s time had its religious fundamental tendencies.
What I dislike most of the current bellowing of terms like Islamofascist by the Bushies and neo-conservatives is the dishonest, immature use of the term. Bill Kristol, Mark Levin, Karl Rove, George W. Bush, maybe even Sean Hannity, know the term is inaccurate and a gross simplification of the level of a high school debater. They should be ashamed.
I also wondered about Islamofacist. After doing some research it seemed fairly accurate to me.
Webster’s says; ‘a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nations and race and stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.’
From what I’ve seen in the media the people who are practicing, on a global level, the intentional murder of innocent men, women, and children are committing these murders over the religion of Islam.
All of these murders claim to be loyal to Islam. They are all working for organizations that are Islamic in make up. They base all of their policies, politics, and actions on a form of Islam.
There stated view of the world is that everyone, everyone in the world, must convert to Islam or die. But not only convert to Islam but convert to their group leader’s personal view of Islam.
So if your chosen faith is Islam but your view of Islam is not the view of their group leader then you must also convert or die.
Sound like fascism to me.
Isn’t it ironic that Cato complains about a slight liberty taken by calling these religious fanatics “fascists,” but probably has no problem with leftists calling Bush “Hitler” or “babykiller?”
Or how about Dick Durbin comparing our soldiers to the Soviet regime and Pol Pot? Or Chevy Chase Calling Bush a Dumb F**k? Would Cato care to condemn those statements?
MountaimMan,
I am a paleoconservative. I’d never support a liberal like Bush or Cheney. There is absolutely nothing conservative about them. Their foreign policy is nothing but liberal Wilsonian interventionism. Their stance on immigration is disgusting.
The Islamo-facist label is thrown around too much. It is discussed here http://www.ericmargolis.com where Mr. Margolis comes to the opposite conclusion. Has anyone noticed that opponents of US foreign policy become the Hitler de jour. I think its Ahmadinejads turn today. This is just namecalling and shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Cato,
I made no claim regarding Bush or Cheney, nor did I defend them.
I asked specifically if you would condemn those people who already use rhetoric like this towards their ideological enemies.
As far as David’s remark, just the opposite of what he says is true.
“…some of the tactics of the Bush administration resemble those of Hitler and his Brownshirts.” http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff07182003.html
“Comparing Bush with Hitler…so far they seem a lot alike” http://bush-hitler.com
“…However, the resemblance sticks–there are too many similarities to be ignored…” http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles3/Jayne_Hitler-Bush.htm
“German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder apologized in a letter to President Bush Friday for the offense caused by reports that his justice minister had compared Bush’s methods to Hitler’s.” http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/21/world/main522862.shtml
It seems to me that leftists want immunity from criticism. They throw out their flaming rhetoric, then stand aghast when someone actually has the temerity to disagree with them. They soon are screaming that Bush is trying to censor them, that dissent is patriotic, and how dare anyone question their support of the troops?
Back to the original point though, people, you know that tired saying about walking like a duck, et c.? Seriously. Fascists. Likening them to the Puritans (and I have no great love there, either) falls far short. While the Puritans did pull the witch trials and all, those were rare cases, as opposed to merely ostracizing dissenters. These muslims are. killing. people. And they don’t want to stop. They are dying (ha ha) to kill more and more of the rest of us. When they’re taking their coercive theocracy to the point of mass murder, don’t you think the term “islamic fascist” is even just a little bit accurate?
mountain man ,
Lets agree that both sides do name-calling. Who would you say today is more like Hitler, Bush or Ahmadinejade? By the way , I really enjoyed your responses on the crunchy- con article…we are on the same page when it comes to the free market and economics.
Perhaps Islamo-fanatic would be appropriate – - fanatic being “a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics” or fanatical (“motivated or characterized by an extreme, uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics”) as a prefix, as in fanatical Islamist.
So, let me see if I understand this correctly.
Those who oppose the use of the phrase “Islamo fascism” are upset because we are calling those who cut off the heads of still-living human beings, fly planes full of people into office buildings, and detonate bombs in civilian population centers in furtherance of their religion, by the wrong name.
This is the great debate? Would you feel better if we called them Islamo-Nazis, or Islamo-butchers, or Islamo-baby killers?
No, somehow I think you’d still object, because the reason why you’re so exorcised over the term Islamo fascism is that it has the potential of focusing the American people more directly on the growing threat from militant Islam that the Left needs to downplay, or deny altogether, in order to weasel their way back in power.
Why is it that the Left can never be intellectually honest about their motives? Does anyone really believe you’d give a second thought to mischaracterizing the Bush Administration if that designation helped further your political objectives?
And do you even understand the terms you use when you throw around words like “neocon”, or think that “regime change” is somehow the exclusive province of Marxist terminology? Stick to praxis, hegemony, and dialectics if you want to make someone believe you’ve ever read Marx, who would view a religious-based Islamo fascism as a much great threat to humanity than simple capitalist dynamics, which he believed contained within it the seeds of its own destruction.
By the way, the “authentic conservative” Daniel Larison that Cato mentioned, I’ve come to find out, is a Ph.D. student in Byzantine history at the University of Chicago. As someone who actually has a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago, I’m a little curious about anyone who doesn’t need to focus on writing and defending his dissertation in his chosen field of study, but instead has time to become an expert in an entirely different discipline. We used to call these people (somewhat unkindly) “faculty members without portfolio.”
If this is the person you want to take your political cue’s from, then I guess I’ll start writing about astrophysics. I mean, after all, I write science fiction as a hobby, so I’ve got as much reason to claim the “authentic astrophysicists” title as Mr. Larison, the Byzantine scholar, can claim being an authentic conservative.
I hereby reverse the latest ruling and return Pluto to its full planetary status.
(And by the way, Islamo terrorists are Islamo fascists, whether saying so helps Bush or not).
David,
Are you serious when you ask in post #10 who is more like Hitler, Bush or
Ahmedinejad? I ask this because the thing best remembered about Hitler
is his immense hatred of Jews and Jewry. With Ahmedinejad saying that
Israel must be destroyed, the Holocoust was a myth, the Jewish state is a
tumor, and with Bush saying nothing about it one way or the other, I think
Ahmedinejad wins hands down.
Dear Mr. Jackson:
It seems that these folks in the Middle East have been at war with the world since long before Mohammed even came along. Islam has just given them another excuse for fighting. Therefore, I can do nothing but agree with you about how inane it is to be arguing over which phrase is the best to use. Sounds like mental masturbation to me. Whatever word it takes to wake up the American people to the huge threat we face is fine with me.
As far as what Phd’s and academics should be saying or doing, I’ll leave that up to you guys since I’m neither.
Your comments were certainly clear, well written and arrived at the appropriate conclusion.
Dear Dr. Jackson:
I apologize for addressing you as “Mr.” rather than “Dr.” in my previous comments.
Hey Mike, I’ve been called a lot worse!
Take care, Phil
Lane,
I know this will come as a huge surprise to you but Ahmadinejad has never threatened to wipe out Israel or professed a hatred for Jews or categorically denied the holocaust. This is propaganda the public is fed in order to get them to accept war (like the WMD baloney).This is the real objection some of us have about the language used today by the so-called right. Did you know that the former chief prosecuter of the Nuremberg Trials is still alive? His name is Benjamin Ferencz. He successfully convicted 22 Nazi officers for war crimes. He thinks Bush is responsible for war crimes. What, again, has Ahmadinejad done?
David:
Are you the same David from who said that Lincoln had no authority to use military forces in the Civil War (What kind of car would Jesus drive to take his girlfriend to an abortion clinic?), or David the 16 year old boy who makes up claims that the “The World Court decided in 2004 that ALL Israeli settlements were illegal” (The Cult of the Offensive)?
I’ve noticed a “David” in some other comment sections too where people keep pointing out that you make up facts, and you end your comments by saying that your only real intention was to enter a legitimate discussion, say outrageous things, and see how many people would think you are actually serious.
Anyway, it took me 3 minutes to find this on the web.
Ahmadinejad: Destroy Israel, End Crisis
The Associated Press Thursday, August 3, 2006; 10:49 AM
PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel.
Iranian President says call to destroy Israel is “just”
The Hindu Press
DUBAI: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Friday defended his controversial remarks calling for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” saying his remark was “right and just”. Participating in an anti-Israel rally in Teheran, the President signalled that he stood by his statement.
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has described the Holocaust as “a myth” and suggested that Israel be moved to Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska.
How about a genetic shiite stain on this earth. Aptly describes most arab/persian muslims.
And David, Ahmadinejad has on numerous times threatened to wipe out Israel and professed a hatred for Jews and Christians and all non muslims, its documented by several sources. Don’t try to defend the man here or any Islamo fascists on this site or any other but those with an ignorant liberal bent where the people are mostly uneducated and lack wordly experience in things other than fornication. Until you have lived over there or been stationed there you have no idea how bad ‘those’ people are. They are a true crap stain on this earth for several reasons of their own making.
I used to believe all humans had some worth or a modicum of redeeming value until the second and third periods of my life spent over in the middle east. Most Muslims arab and persian are utterly worthless in terms of any significant offering to the earth or human progress. If they disappeared today, all of them, the earth and all civilization would be far better off. Sad to say it but true.
You people who run this site are not interested in the truth or facts. I will leave you in your world of paranoia tilting at windmills.
Yep. It’s the David I thought it was.
NOTE TO EVERYONE: David is a young highschool kid who likes to make comments to see if anyone will actually take him seriously. There’s really no need to respond to him unless you want to do it for the fun of it. But don’t feel the need to take him seriously. It’s just a game to him. He doesn’t really believe anything he writes. He just does it to see if you’ll take the bait.
David,
So, what I read in USA Today about Ahmedinejad saying that Israel should be
wiped off the map, and in various other sources about the Holocaust being a
myth, etc… these reputable news sources are all lying? I’m not sure I believe that.
As to the WMD’s, it has been established that Saddam had them and that he
was attempting to conceal them. Or is that just “propaganda?” As to the war crimes
BS, what proof has this guy got, and what has Nuremburg to do with anything?
Oh, right, the “Bush is Hitler” thing. Returning to my original question, which
you did not answer, what with Hitler’s and Ahmendinejad’s DOCUMENTED
hatred of Israel and the Jews, wouldn’t Ahmedinejad be more suited to a
Hitler comparison? Or do you just hate Bush so much that you feel justified
in libeling the President?
I like this article for one reason; it gave us a window into the thought processes of our enemy. It seems funny that liberals think that calling our enemy ‘Islamofascists’ is ‘childish’, but have no problem with the labels ‘Hitler’ for President Bush or ‘Nazis’ for our brave troops fighting these monsters (by the way, ‘monsters’ isn’t a ‘label’, it’s a description). The reason for the description is simple: THEY ATTACKED US!!! Got it? Let me say it again…THEY ATTACKED US!!!
I know that for some of you that in your twisted logic we deserved it. As far as I’m concerned, that’s like blaming the rape victim for her rape.
On that day, people, who only wanted to reach their destination, were subject to monstrous behavior of having their planes hijacked and then slammed into buildings that in turn killed people who only wanted to make a living.
Remember that these monsters want to do this again until their worldview is established as the only one that one can choose. In order to have the freedom to disagree, we have to know who we’re fighting and how to fight them so that we and our children can continue to live and think freely.
I personally think that Bush should be impeached and then tried for treason for his refusal to stop the third-world illegal (and legal) alien invasion of America, and for his unconstitutional support of the NAFTA SuperHighway, thus undermining American independence.
Cato,
I actually appreciate your comments. They help me understand more clearly the more conservative of American conservative. And yes I do tend toward the neo-conservative label, though I would not like that tag. The problem for those in your camp of the conservative movement is you tend to dislike the relationship between America and Israel, Pat Buchanan and Bob Novak come to mind. But the ultra Christian conservatives like Pat Robertson support strengthened US/Israel relations. Could you articulate why so called “paleo-conservatives” do not support our strategic as well as ideological relationship with Israel?
Jim,
I can tell you a little of what Pat says about that. In his book An Empire Not a Republic he says
“Although [Israel] has received $100 billion in U.S. arms and aid over the past thirty years, Israel has contemptuously dismissed U.S. demands to stop building settlements on Arab land. And, despite our generosity, Israel suborned the traitor Jonathan Pollard to loot our vital secrets, lied about it, and then sold the technology for our patriot and python missiles, and the AWACS and F-16, to communist China. Israel looks out for Israel first, and Americans must start looking out for America first…America must make it known to the Arab and Islamic world that Israel does not have a blank check from the US. We can no longer give preemptive absolution to an Israeli regime that could drag America into a war of civilizations with the Arab and Islamic world”
page xiii of the introduction To Hell With Empire.
So we captured another top Al Queda/Islamo fascists in Iraq. Will this stop the violence or future violence over there one bit? Probably not. Until we hold all arab/persian muslims accountable for their beliefs then we as Westerners will suffer their barbaric war against us. Both in blood and treasure and due to our current tactic of trying to pick off mid level leaders one by one allowing them to keep on fighting and killing.
Which begs the question; at which point do our vaunted leaders admit that this tactic does not work and either move on to targeting the so called average muslim or pack up and leave with a stern warning to current and future middle east religious leaders to not mess with us?
It seems as though our government decided to run a politically correct war operation in an effort to keep the leftists in this country and elsewhere on board with the operation. An obvious mistake since the leftists go either way on any issue.
There are two problems with the Neo-Coms and heterophobes making up the left. First, they have their heads up their own (or someone else’s) anus, and it’s hard to see the light from there.
Second, even with that, we can still hear their shrill voices.
Dean,
You make a great point, but only from what you think is the only thing going on. We are doing stuff you nor I know about nor should. This means that all offensives against this foe by our forces of whatever angle of attack needs our support. As for the beliefs of the average muslims; yes it should be made extremely clear that those who interpret their beliefs to center in violence must and will, in no uncertain terms, be stopped, and that their goals will not succeed. This will eventually cause those who are left to reenterpret their beliefs. We’ve allowed the violent to be this way for too long which will lengthen this war. To end it, we must officially Declare War to make it an official fight, then use all means necessary to achieve victory.
From all accounts your are already doing what is necessary to achieve victory. The army has been killing hundreds of civilians. In Iran you have failed. In Iraq you have failed. In Lebanon you have failed. Your interventionist democracy building exercise is in a shambles and still you think more upgraded killing is in order. Your war on everything has destabilized the world and still you fervently embrace more death and destruction. You lack the capacity to see the horror of your experiments ramifications. I pray your influence will be broken by the American people before you get more people killed. My God have mercy on your souls.
Dear Mr. DeBurg:
DeBurg, is that a French name?
It would explain alot.
DeBurg only has the stomach for war when Clinton is doing the bombing. Where were all the antiwar anti-war protesters back then, I wonder?
dear mike brown
Is that the best you can do? Call me French? Truly that is beyond pathetic. Rather childish I would say. Try thinking of the name Patrick . If you stayed in school you might have been able to figure this one out..
Mountain man
To tell you the truth I don’t have much “stomach” for war no matter who is dropping bombs. Last time I checked it was not a crime to protest war. I’m not one to celebrate it however. I find statements like holding every Arab in the world accountable and killing as many as possible to bring them into line a defeatist attitude. It is beyond comprehension to suggest such a thing. I don’t like killing innocent people no matter who does the killing. I did not have the stomach for war when Clinton, Bush, Hussain, Isreal, Bin Laden, Russia, and the too numbered to count nations were dropping bombs. And to tell you the truth if you are human you wouldn’t enjoy the thought as much as the contributers to this post seem to enjoy this utter destruction. I still say shame on those that promote this madness.
Patrick,
Who said it was a crime to protest war? Who is holding “every Arab in the world” accountable? You argue points no one has made.
However, there are people in the world today who don’t care about your higher sensibilities, sir. Their only aim is to kill as many infidels as possible. It’s convert or die, so what’s your choice, hmm?
No one enjoys war, but sensible people recognize its grim necessity when dealing with people who behead innocents for fun. Our government has the constitutional authority to wage war, and by doing so has saved millions of lives and beat back or eliminated oppressors all over the globe. It’s about freedom, sir.
“Utter destruction” is a complete misrepresentation of our involvement in the war against terror. This is probably the most politically correct war the US has ever fought. That is why it is dragging on, to appease the touchy-feely leftists who don’t understand the purpose of war.
The purpose of war is to kill evil people and blow up their stuff. The only goal must be victory. When there is no other recourse, when the other side is only interested in our elimination, that’s when war must be waged. No one relishes the thought, but courageous people stand up and say, “this far and no more.”
When innocent lives on are the line, pacifism is for cowards.
Mountain man
Please read post 28 by Dean. That should clarify the call for every muslim head I referred to. As a conservative Dean has very concrete solutions posted. Veiw the war on terror any way you wish sir but realize that Iraq described as utter destruction is not overreaching. 1500 people died last month and the country is sliding into civil war and probably partition. This will make Iran stronger. The war on terror is growing larger every day. In Afghanistan US troops just wounded 30 canadians and killed a canadian Olympic runner cause they couldn’t read a map I guess. Major Harry Schmidt killed four Canadians and wounded eight. Remember the british troop carrier? The Taliban are bad enough but having to watch your allies? No misrepresentation at all I would say. I wondered when this disaster would become the fault of the liberals and now the blame shifting begins in your post. It is now our fault for this war dragging on. And that is because you have to play nice? A 14 year old raped and her family murdered? Abu Garib? Probably 100,000 dead civilians? And your being nice? AND NOW IT’S OUR FAULT? Please lay the blame of this utter destruction at your feet and do not dare to say some how we’re to blame. Isn’t your mantra take responsibility for your actions? Pacifism is never for cowards sir. Innocent lives are on the line but war seems to be adding to the body count. As my father would say ” There is no sin on a fool’s mother.”
Dear Mr. DeBerg:
Now that I have your attention, could you help out by considering my comments #14 and #29?
By the way, I believe I asked you a question about your name, I didn’t call you French. I would save that for only a special breed of person.
Mr. DeBurg,
Try to follow along as I explain this again.
War is a grim necessity that no one relishes. It is ugly, people die. That’s what is happening over ther, people are dying. For some reason, you think America is to blame for all this. The reason people are dying over there is because there are evil people who want to exterminate us. They don’t care about innocents. They don’t care about 14 year old girls. They don’t care about 30 dead Canadians. They want to WIPE US OUT. And they feel free to kill 100,000 of their own countrymen in this pursuit Is this clear?
These people, and the ones who harbor them, must be stopped. They are the reason we are over there. You were absolutely right when you said the war on terror is growing larger every day. Does the truth of your statement impact your thinking at all? Would you rather be checking under your car every morning for a pipe bomb? That is what we all will be doing if these people are not stopped.
You leftists have been critcizing every minute detail of the war on terror since its inception. You leftists have nit-picked every perceived misstep, second guessed every strategic decision, and parsed every single word anyone has ever spoken regarding the prosecution of this war. The rhetoric of the leftists so perfectly matches the rhetoric of the terrorists it’s scary. One can justifiably wonder whose side you’re on.
As to Dean’s comment, I can only read what he said and assume what he is thinking. I quote: “Until we hold all arab/persian muslims accountable for their beliefs then we as Westerners will suffer their barbaric war against us.” I think his context is pretty clear. He’s talking about those Muslims who are waging their barbaric war against us. Sounds like you’re misrepresenting what he said.
Mr Brown
You are right to suggest that this part of the world has been fighting for centuries as you suggest in post 14 but the point I make is that men have been fighting everywhere all the time. Muslims do not go it alone in their warfare. The crux of the problem is fighting breaks out for no real reason. The cost of this is catastropic as we now see in Iraq and Afganistan,Chechna. Remember a war was started by America that has now destabilized the world. There was no weapons of mass destruction. In this war right now more than enough muslims are dying. Innocent guilty they are paying a huge cost in life far more than we are. Imagine if every day hundreds of people were murdered on the streets of America. How would Americans react? Republican would turn against Democrat and America would look much like Iraq. We believe we are civilized but it wouldn’t take much to bring it down. That what pains me in these posts. Here people call for more bloodshed to solve the problem but the muslims are paying in huge amounts. And rather than breaking them it’s made them stronger.
Mr Brown
I will not respond to post 29
I would not represent your
opinions in such a manner.
Republicans are convinced of
their stand and more power
to them.
I believe they are quite wrong
and hope to dissuade them of
this endeavor. Many things that come
from america’s choice I let stand. In
how they see this war I must not remain silent.
I will not denigrate or go vulgar
them because I think it’s funny
Mountain man
Clever! You use the first half of the paragraph of Deans post and omit the second and last point he makes! lets examine the statement to see if I am “misrepresenting ” him. ” Which begs the question when do our vaunted leaders admit this tactic does not work and either move on to targeting the so called average muslim.” He is saying kill more civilians or go home. If this still does not convince you read his other posts. Don’t pretend he means something quite different. I’m not that stupid.
Iraq is not to be framed in the Evil guys want to kill us so we need to go over there and kill them first. The It is far more complicated that that. Us evil leftists were trying to explain that to your administration. For god’s sake a huge component of your own military was trying to tell you that but you would not listen. That is the real treason here. I have little fear that a horde of jhadists are going to be coming over to pipe bomb my car. They would need ships to invade but I suppose Rumsfeld could sell them that once he needs another strongman in the area like Saddam again. Time for another hand shaking photo op.
You are right to say we have been critizing every step of this war. THAT’S BECAUSE YOU HAVE COMPOUNDED EVERY STEP YOU HAVE TAKEN. WE HAVE SUGGESTED THAT YOU CHANGE TACK AT EVERY STEP AND OF AS YESTERDAY THIS ADMINISTRATON STILL BLINDLY STUMBLES INTO MORE MORE DESTRUCTION. Why can’t you take advice? Are you so blind that you cannot see?
As for my rhetoric comforting the enemy, you and your rhetoric and your blind I’m right at any cost is givng far more comfort than I could ever possibly give. For you feed the fanatics. You give them a 12 course meal on which they glut. Your actions have built there strength, fed their vision. If I was to wander into the lair of the jehadi and talked peace they would kill me because this is what they want to avoid. But if you walked in with your outlook they would make a tape and then relese you for they would know that you are the “perfect usful idiot”
Mr DeBurg,
If you walked into the lair of the Jehadi they would kill you. It would matter little what ‘outlook’ you came with. You don’t get it; they hate us! They don’t need a good reason, either! We are not them! That’s all the justification they need! Consider this: if an African American were to walk into a KKK meeting and waxed eloquent with all kinds of perfectly logical reasoning, would the attendant KKKers then say
“My goodness! I do see the logic in his argumentation and understand completely how I’ve been wrong! I now see the black man as my brother and embrace him completely as an equal and as a valuable member of society!”
or would they see him and say “Hey lookie here! A n___! Git a rope!”? The jihadists and the KKK have that in common. Think about it.
Jeez, Mr. DeBurg, you truly do not understand plain English, do you?
Islamofascists bombed the world trade center in 1993. They bombed the USS Cole. They blew up the American embassy in Beruit. They beheaded innocent civilians. They flew planes into the world trade center, and in case you don’t know, the twin towers are no longer there. 3000 people died. Does any of this ring a bell?
Sir, they are already here, they don’t need ships or an airforce. They have infiltrated our society and are waiting for an opportunity to kill. They don’t wear uniforms. They don’t care about anything but killing infidels. They have attacked us dozens of times. They have killed hundreds of thousands of people all over the world, many of them their own countrymen. They have been killing for decades. This is nothing new.
“Oh, but if we would only leave them alone. We just need to understand their motives. They have legitimate grievances against us. After all, we invaded their country. They’re people, too. There was no problem until we unilaterally attacked them. Bush is a liar. Impeach him. Rumsfeld needs to resign. Condi Rice is an idiot.” Ad nauseum.
At some point you’re going to have to lay aside your moveon.org talking points. We were attacked, and we are defending ourselves. You leftists have offered exactly zero in terms of the war on terror except Monday morning quarterbacking. You leftists have offered nothing of substance, no plan, no strategy, nothing except whining and complaining. You look at the war solely as the opportunity to score political points against the administration, at the expense of the troops and their mission.
Oh, but by heavens, you support the troops, you do. And then you do everything in your power to undermine their mission. You offer what is basically the Al Qaida bill of rights. You think our troops are murders and rapists. But you support the troops, yes you do.
Somehow you expect me to defend Dean, but even the comment you quote is not advocating anything, only asking a question. I actually don’t know how stupid you might be, that’s not for me to decide. I can only read the plain language of a man I do not know and find that he does not appear to be saying what you say he is.
You know, in order to have a discussion we need to have a common frame of reference. At present, your frame of reference appears to be guided by what you are spoon fed by the extremists in the democratic party. They seem bent on revising history to suit their talking points.
I’m done with this thread, because it is pointless to try to correct your every faulty assumption. I can’t be chasing you all over as you jump from subject to subject and toss out leftists talking points like baseballs on opening day at the park.
When you can engage a thought process that involves logic and reason, maybe we’ll converse again.