Posts
Paul Krugman says no where, because Islamofascists don't exist.
Sen. Russ Feingold said this over a year ago and I have to agree with him and Krugman. The only thing the term does is alienate an entire region. Instead we need to call the people what they are: Islamic radicals or Islamic fundamentalists.[T]here isn’t actually any such thing as Islamofascism — it’s not an ideology; it’s a figment of the neocon imagination. The term came into vogue only because it was a way for Iraq hawks to gloss over the awkward transition from pursuing Osama bin Laden, who attacked America, to Saddam Hussein, who didn’t. And Iran had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 — in fact, the Iranian regime was quite helpful to the United States when it went after Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies in Afghanistan.
Beyond that, the claim that Iran is on the path to global domination is beyond ludicrous. Yes, the Iranian regime is a nasty piece of work in many ways, and it would be a bad thing if that regime acquired nuclear weapons. But let’s have some perspective, please: we’re talking about a country with roughly the G.D.P. of Connecticut, and a government whose military budget is roughly the same as Sweden’s. […]
Mike Huckabee, whom reporters like to portray as a nice, reasonable guy, says that if Hillary Clinton is elected, “I’m not sure we’ll have the courage and the will and the resolve to fight the greatest threat this country’s ever faced in Islamofascism.” Yep, a bunch of lightly armed terrorists and a fourth-rate military power — which aren’t even allies — pose a greater danger than Hitler’s panzers or the Soviet nuclear arsenal ever did.
All of this would be funny if it weren’t so serious.
4 comments:
You do realize that the term "Islamofacisim" has nothing to do with any of the points actually raised by Mr. Krugman?Whether Iran was involved in 9/11 or poses an actual threat has nothing to do with whether their regime can accurately be called facist. There is, perhaps, a debatable question whether Islamist regimes fit the classical definition of facism, but that debate is no where included in Mr. Krugman's comments.
Either Mr. Krugman doesn't understand the terms he is using, or he's hoping his readers don't.
The point is that the term Islamofascism doesn't fit. It only alienates an entire religion and pits the moderate Islamics against us when we need their help to root out terrorism.
Facism is a poltical science term used to describe a certain type of government. If that term fits, then whether it's "helpful" or not doesn't really matter does it?
Of course it's silly to say that all muslims are "Islamofacists", but that's not the issue. The facts support that a sizeable minority of fundamentalist Muslims adovate a facist politic, with Islam as the unifying ideal on which to base a poltical regeime. For example...the Taliban.
The negative conotations, and "inconvience" of the term "Islamofacism" doesn't change the fact that the shoe might just fit.
From my understanding fascism is the merging of business and political interests by using patriotism and religion secure power.
Post a Comment