Paul Krugman Proved A Fool By British Islamists
Paul Krugman, New York Times’ resident Bush Hater & Appeaser (and man, that’s quite an accomplishment) wrote a widely discussed piece on Monday: Fearing Fear Itself.
It features all of the now-routine liberal rhetoric designed to undercut and de-legitimize our war effort and our American government itself. But the key line of the piece was this:
For one thing, there isn’t actually any such thing as Islamofascism — it’s not an ideology; it’s a figment of the neocon imagination.
What is it with Krugman and Andrew Sullivan suddenly taking themselves into “Imagination” world? As if 9/11 never happened…. and 3,000 of our citizens weren’t killed by an organized, worldwide radical movement.
But I digress….
It didn’t take long for those imaginary Islamofascists to prove Krugman a fool.
Hate Literature Easily Found at UK Mosques – Telegraph (UK) …. (h/t – The Corner)
Researchers for the centre-Right think tank Policy Exchange claims it found the literature in a quarter of the 100 mosques and Islamic institutions they visited.
Many of the publications allegedly called on British Muslims to segregate themselves from non-Muslims and for unbelievers to be treated as second-class citizens wherever possible.
The literature also allegedly contained repeated calls for gays to be thrown from mountains and tall buildings and for women to be subjugated.
Policy Exchange said that among the documents were the anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, and other publications peddling bizarre conspiracy theories.
Anthony Browne, the director of Policy Exchange, said: “It is clearly intolerable that hate literature is peddled at some British mosques.
“I am sure the majority of moderate Muslims will be as horrified as everyone else that pamphlets advocating jihad by force, hatred for insufficiently observant Muslims, Christians and Jews, and segregationhave found their way into the UK’s mosques.”
Yep, I’m sure. We’ve been waiting for the moderate Muslims to take back their religion for quite some time. I have no doubt this will be the latest tipping point. (*sarcasm off*)
Someone please help me…. I don’t recall the last time any similar hate propaganda has been easily found at Christian churches or Jewish synagogues. I’m happy to be proved wrong.
What is so funny (if it weren’t pathetic) is that Krugman has been played the fool by the very folks he says don’t exist and aren’t a threat.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
PS - Krugman’s separation of Iran from the larger Islamic terror threat is very disingenuous as both Iran has been documented to support Islamic terror groups around the world with cash, troops and weapons.
66 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Are you retarded or what?
Krugman did not say that “these people” didnt exist – i.e. hate-filled terrorists. He said that there is no ideology that can be properly called “islamofascism”. It is an absurd term used by those who push an absolutist militarism to counter all aspects of the terrorist threat.
Just like all the Hitler analogies. It is a sign of intellectual dishonesty, and perhaps a lack of confidence in your position, to try to back up your policies with Nazi analogies.
Comment by Tano — October 30, 2007 @ 6:32 pm - October 30, 2007
So, let’s see. We have a global movement of radical Islamists using violence against innocent people with the goal of creating a global Islamic caliphate and subjugating all people under an Iranian or Taliban-style totalitarian regime.
But, we’re not allowed to call them Islamo-fascists because that gets left-wingers panties in a wad.
Comment by V the K — October 30, 2007 @ 6:47 pm - October 30, 2007
They seem to be on a campaign to de-legitimize the term “Islamo-fascism”. So, let’s consider the term.
Fascism has different definitions, depending on whom you talk to. Wikipedia opens with:
Since Islam is a religion not a State, then obviously, Islam as such is not fascism.
But then again, in the true Islam, there is no separation of Church and State. Separation of Church and State is a Western invention. The question is: does terrorist ideology, or militant Islam-ism, resemble fascism? Given Islam’s historical blending of Church and State: would militant Islamism then be Islam’s equivalent of fascism?
Answer: Yes. Hence the invented, hyphen-ated term: Islamo-fascism.
Justification: Islamo-fascism, or militant Islamism,
- is extremely authoritarian (coercive and undemocratic, in fact, explicitly anti-democratic);
- is a political ideology
- is generally tied to, or aspires to be tied to, a mass movement (the religion of Islam);
- absolutely subordinates individual and other societal interests to the interests of the blended / un-differentiated Religion-State.
So, going by Wiki’s definition of fascism, militant Islamism is Islam’s equivalent of fascism, justifying the hyphenated term “Islamo-fascism”.
In addition, we have the facts that the Islamo-fascists:
- Officially hate and execute gays (while perhaps practicing some homosexuality in secret);
- Hate Jews and seek to destroy them; and
- Admire Hitler and, in several important cases, drew organizational philosophy and manuals directly from Nazi Party writings.
All corresponding to their Western fascist counterparts. Long story short, the term “Islamo-fascism” is intellectually sound.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 30, 2007 @ 6:52 pm - October 30, 2007
#1 Tano, you’re fully answered in my #3. Read it and weep.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 30, 2007 @ 6:53 pm - October 30, 2007
P.S. To further illustrate the point – Wiki’s definition needs only the slightest adaptation:
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 30, 2007 @ 7:08 pm - October 30, 2007
Your last statement is the most telling, GP; Krugman frantically screams that Iran would never support Sunni terrorist organizations because they’re Shi’ite — but he blatantly ignores the fact that they have supported and ARE openly and loudly supporting the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and Hamas, all of which are Sunni groups, aside from sending their own people into Iraq to foment violence and their Hezbollah puppets.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 30, 2007 @ 8:09 pm - October 30, 2007
I don’t get it: For years, I’ve waited for gay communities to stand up against the outrageous homophobia of Islam. When Bush is out of the White House and can no longer be blamed for everthing from forest fires to weight-gain, might gay leaders finally acknowlege the dangers of fundamental Islam to gays? I fear it might take a “Theo Van Gogh” situation to wake up our brothers.
Comment by MikeInSedona — October 30, 2007 @ 8:10 pm - October 30, 2007
v the k,
oh the old “panties in a wad”. My how clever you are.
Yeah, I kinda get upset when I see my fellow countrymen refusing to use their brains, to analyze a problem rationally and find the best solution, but rather rely on simplistic ultra-boogyman analogies that merely provide cover for policy alternatives that are themselves never evaluated rationally.
I mean, lets face it. If these guys are fascists, Hitlers, etc. then the only thing one can do is support the most extremist militaristic policy alternative. Total war. Right? All else can be dismissed before the discussion even starts.
A perfect example of why it is that you rightwingers come across as such sheep. You dont seem to want to participate in the great democratic experiment that this country promises – ie. to participate fully, as a citizen, in the evaluation of government policies. No, you just want a strong leader to follow.
That is what this rhetoric is all about. The threat is existential. On the same level as the Nazis. Therefore the only thing a citizen should do is STFU, salute, and get with the program.
Comment by Tano — October 30, 2007 @ 8:20 pm - October 30, 2007
Islamofascist?
Mr. Krugman should ask the people of: New York, London, Madrid, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Amman, Beirut, Kandahar, Darfur, Casablanca, Washington, Kashmir, Dahab, Mogadishu, Baghdad, Manila, Moscow, Beslan, Jakarta, Bali and the bucolic countryside of Pennsylvania – what they think of the phrase “Islamofacist”, and weather it’s a ‘figment’ of their imagination
I’m willing to bet my nursing home nest egg money that the phrase ‘Allah Akbar’ has been heard immediately prior to: the planes crashing, the bombs exploding, the train station, café, school, public square, marketplace marine barracks, and office building bursting into flames.
But then again, I’m not into that whole ‘moral/cultural/religious equivalence’ thing either….
As ILC clearly pointed out: Islam is a militant political ideology masquerading as a religion -
Apparently, Mr. Krugman is masquerading as a columnist when in fact he’s a useful idiot – but you didn’t need me to tell you that.
Comment by Vera Charles — October 30, 2007 @ 8:31 pm - October 30, 2007
Ilovecapitalism,
The definition you use is ridiculously broad. It, obviously, fails to distinguish fascism from communism, or for that matter, with only a little tweaking, from the Christian monarchies of the pre-industrial West.
So it is not a sufficient definition of fascism. It is merely a defintion of any form of totalitarianism.
“in the true Islam, there is no separation of Church and State.”
Tell that to the Turks. But of course, you could also say that in TRUE catholicism there is no separation either. Separation was imposed on the Catholic church against its will. So what is “true” catholicism, or “true” islam? Why are you taking the position that Turks are not truly Islamic, but Osama et al are?
“does terrorist ideology, or militant Islam-ism, resemble fascism? ”
I don’t deny that you could find similarities. You could also find as many differences. It is an analogy, not a categorization. And analogies are deployed for larger purposes. You need to examine the motives of those who insist on this analogy. It does not clarify the nature of the phenomenon – if you want to fully understand radical Islamic terrorism, then dispense with analogies and just look at the facts. The analogy is deployed for the larger purpose of leading you down the path to a particular response. Wake up.
And dont be silly with this Wikipedia nonsense. Who do you think would write a description of islam, or “islamophobia” for a user-generated encyclopedia, other than people with an agenda?
Comment by Tano — October 30, 2007 @ 8:35 pm - October 30, 2007
Vera,
Your comment seems to be one big non sequitor.
How does the experience of terrorism, which obviously no one denies is being perpetrated, or the cry of Allah akbar, which I agree, no doubt, was yelled out at the moment of murder, – how does all that necessarily lead to the term “fascism”?
Are all terrorist murderers fascists? Does terrorism = fascism? Are the words synonomous?
No they are not. Fascism is a particular ideology. It used terroristic tactics, though not like the ones Islamic radicals are using. But they are hardly the only ones to have ever used terrorism.
“As ILC clearly pointed out: Islam is a militant political ideology masquerading as a religion -”
To whatever extent that is true, it doesn’t necessarily make that ideology the same thing as “fascism”.
Comment by Tano — October 30, 2007 @ 8:45 pm - October 30, 2007
Total war is not yet necessary at this stage. All out war, with massive civilian casualties, would solve the problem of Islamo-fascism quickly, but the country’s leadership has opted for a prolonged struggle. The choice of strategy in dealing with the threat does not change the nature of the threat itself.
Comment by V the K — October 30, 2007 @ 8:47 pm - October 30, 2007
Excuse me, but I would like to urge my fellow conservatives who have been lulled into reading this blog to direct their attention elsewhere, there are plenty of good family-values conservative blogs that can discuss these issues, you don’t need to turn to publicity seeking homosexual activists pretending to represent the “conservative” perspective: Michelle Malkin, Little Green Footballs, Red State, Captain’s Quarters, Hot Air.
I think this website best represents the dilemma faced by values voters in the primary, do we cede ourselves to sinners who would carry our banner? I think not. The title of this blog is quote “Gay Patriot”, but that’s laughably farsical. Homosexuality and patriotism are incompatible. Sodomy repulsed the founding fathers of this country. This is a Christian nation, it was founded on CHRISTIAN values. Sodomy is an affront to those values.
This is a time for conservatives to come together to stop a socialist-Islamist-supporting corrupt politician such as Hillary Clinton from taking the White House, not to break apart and crawl beneath RINO’s such as Rudy Guiliani, John McCain or our friend “Gay Patriot” here.
For those of you who are interested, here is a good article at Red State discussing the inherent violent underpinnings and unstable nature of homosexuality and what may cause it(which is a mental disorder, aptly titled):
http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/6/27/10711/8436
Comment by RepublicanPatriot — October 30, 2007 @ 8:57 pm - October 30, 2007
Welcome, Tano. Are you a spokestroll for CAIR?
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — October 30, 2007 @ 9:00 pm - October 30, 2007
Admire Hitler and, in several important cases, drew organizational philosophy and manuals directly from Nazi Party writings.
Not to mention that they trained and served with the Nazis.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 30, 2007 @ 9:28 pm - October 30, 2007
So, Tano, what description would you choose which would make everybody feel all warm and fuzzy inside?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 30, 2007 @ 9:29 pm - October 30, 2007
IYO. But whatever. Supply your own definition. I can work with that, too.
I went for the first definition I could find from a widely-used, public source. In other words, the top one Google offered. But supply your own.
Indeed, fascism and communism are much the same thing, at their core. They are both authoritarian. They are both anti-freedom. They both hate freedom, the West, Jews and liberal capitalism above all. The ideological differences between them – Marxism vs. racism – are ultimately window-dressing, as both Marxism and racism are ultimately forms of tribalism.
This is why Western fascists, such as Hitler and the Nazis, often found that Communist Party members made their best recruits. And why Islamo-fascists have long been fans of Socialist and Communist ideology and writings, in addition to their love of Nazi writings. Some scholars simply refer to Communism as “left fascism”, and the Nazis as “right fascism”.
Indeed. Turkey’s popular Islamist party objects strongly to the secular State and tradition established by Kemal Ataturk, as something profoundly un-Islamic.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer. Jesus always said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” Even at its most theocratic (in medieval times), Christianity has always understood Church to be separate from State. If you don’t know that, Tano, you need to brush up.
And your evidence / logic for that is…????????? You’ve offered none.
I disagree strongly. I think the term “Islamo-fascism” is very illuminating. At #3, I gave my logic / justification – and I #5, I took one definition of fascism in common use and showed how very easily Islamo-fascism may be identified as a sub-species of it. You’ve done a pretty crappy job “refuting” me.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 30, 2007 @ 10:03 pm - October 30, 2007
I will qualify / correct this statement of mine:
An exception to that is in Reformation times, when Calvinists and others tried to establish true theocracies. BUT, (1) they knew they were going against received Christian tradition in doing so, and (2) their theocratic states did not survive. Thus making them the exceptions that end up proving the general rule.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 30, 2007 @ 10:08 pm - October 30, 2007
And also, I use “separate” to mean, “as a separate and distinct entity”.
Medieval Catholicism did think Church authority should dominate secular authority (kings, etc.). But they continued to understand Church authority as something profoundly different from secular authority, nonetheless. That’s the difference I’m referring to. Not so in Islam. In traditional Islam, the community’s recognized Islamic scholars are also the judges and the civil officials, with no real differentiation between what is civil and what is religious, as the State’s law is Islamic Sharia, period.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 30, 2007 @ 10:24 pm - October 30, 2007
“Your comment seems to be one big non sequitor.”
Tano, darling – Vera’s actually more of a sequitur than not, but everyone’s entitled to their own opinion.
You wrote:
‘How does the experience of terrorism, which obviously no one denies is being perpetrated, or the cry of Allah akbar, which I agree, no doubt, was yelled out at the moment of murder, – how does all that necessarily lead to the term “fascism”?’
Because these acts of terror represent the tactics being used by a group who subscribe to a religious ideology that demands the destruction or conversion of non-believers.
And they’re not the Amish.
They exalt their religion (Islam) over others (Christians/Jews/non-believers), seek to install world wide religious dictators (caliphate) and forcible suppress/kill their opposition (infidels).
They’ll do this using military, economic, cultural and religious venues open to them via democratic societies that would never exist under their worldview.
At least that’s what bin laden said, but who believes him anymoe; he thinks Chompsky is ‘a wise man’.
Lovely to meet you – hope we speak again.
Comment by Vera Charles — October 30, 2007 @ 10:35 pm - October 30, 2007
In other words, Vera: they are an authoritarian political ideology that seeks to subordinate the individual to the interests of the Islamic State.
They are the Islamic equivalent of Western fascism – and, not coincidentally, admirers and adapters of Western fascism in many instances.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 30, 2007 @ 10:54 pm - October 30, 2007
Were Germans during WWII actually “ChristoFascists?” Could the Japanese be better described as “ShintoFascists?” Italians were “RomanCathoFascists.”
Comment by Marty — October 30, 2007 @ 11:41 pm - October 30, 2007
For Krugman and Sully, 9-11 was a aberration. They have spent the last six years intellectualizing it. Not until that moment when they are slapping the sidewalk, wet with blood, reaching for a lost limb, will they reconsider their point-of-view.
Comment by Tom — October 31, 2007 @ 12:00 am - October 31, 2007
Vera darling,
When I ask you how Islamic terrorism equates to fascism you write:
“Because these acts of terror represent the tactics being used by a group who subscribe to a religious ideology that demands the destruction or conversion of non-believers”
Which of course has little if anything to do with fascism.
Fascism, as practiced in Italy and Germany, was not a religous ideology, and did not demand the destruction or conversion of non-believers.
Of course the Germans destroyed the Jews, but it was not because of the religion, but their “race”. And it was not because they refused to adhere to some Nazi “religion”.
I could understand your perspective if the word “fascism” was simply a general, all purose cuss word for horrible murderous people. In that case I would probably agree with you. But the word actually does have a specific meaning, and that was what Krugman was getting at, and me too.
“And they’re not the Amish.”
I guess this passes for humor. But of course, if fascist = non-Amish, then there be a hell of a lot of fascists ’round, no?
Comment by Tano — October 31, 2007 @ 12:14 am - October 31, 2007
Islamofascism:
Origins and usage
Although Islamofascism is usually a reference to Islamism rahter than Islam in general, comparisons have been made between fascism and Islam, as far back as 1937, when the German Catholic emigré Edgar Alexander compared Nazism with “Mohammedanism” , and again, in 1939, when psychologist Carl Jung said about Adolf Hitler, “he is like Mohammed. The emotion in Germany is Islamic, warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with a wild god.”
In 1990 Malise Ruthven wrote, in The Independent:
“Nevertheless there is what might be called a political problem affecting the Muslim world. In contrast to the heirs of some other non-Western traditions, including Hinduism, Shintoism and Buddhism, Islamic societies seem to have found it particularly hard to institutionalise divergences politically: authoritarian government, not to say Islamo-fascism, is the rule rather than the exception from Morocco to Pakistan.”
Comment by Vince P — October 31, 2007 @ 12:34 am - October 31, 2007
Ilovecaptialism,
“fascism and communism are much the same thing”
No they are not. Once again, you could certainly find some similarities, and of course, you do list some. But you could find similarities between just about any two phenomena on earth. Equating two things is not done on the basis of finding some similarities – it is done on the basis of finding near total similarity, and very few if any differences. Otherwise all you have is an analogy.
To treat different phenomena as if they were the same is the high-road to stupidity, or sometimes just a tactic to a hidden agenda.
Marxism, by the way, is many things, most all of them bad, but it isnt a form of tribalism. To the contrary – the Marxists were a very powerful anti-tribalist force, since they aspired to unite workers across tribal and national lines, and they undermined and sought to destroy all competing power structures, most of which, at least in the less highly developed world, were tribal based.
And of course, the communists (as well as liberals) were prime targets for the fascists. You may attempt your glib historical revisionism with regard to these two movements, but those who were part of both movements always understood what profound enemies they were to each other.
“Turkey’s popular Islamist party objects strongly to the secular State ”
No, they don’t object strongly to it. They wish to modify it, in the same way that fundamentalist christians here in the US want to modify our church-state separation. But even if you want to hold to your view, that that party is against separation, it doesnt support your point that Islam is somehow INHERINTLY against church-state separation. One could also look to India and its muslims. Or Indonesia. In fact the OVERWHELMING majority of muslims around the world live in nation states that are more secular than islamic. Not as secular as I would like, but no where near what the Islamists want.
I am glad you pulled back a bit on your denial of church-state unity in the christian world. But it was not only the Cromwellians and other early protestants who tried to unite church and state. The medieval church was distinct from the monarchs and aristocracy, in the sense that they had alleigance to the pope and were their own brotherhood, but they certainly involved themselves in much of the operations of the state. And the Pope of course was the ruler of his own kingdom, that covered most of central Italy, up until the unification of Italy in the 19th century.
“That’s the difference I’m referring to. …the State’s law is Islamic Sharia, period.”
And please tell us. In how many places in the world, ruling over what percentage of the world’s muslims, is such a system in place?
Comment by Tano — October 31, 2007 @ 12:34 am - October 31, 2007
Islam is not so much a religion as it is a government and system of law.
Fascism:
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
Fully implemented, Islam is a system of government (the Caliphate), marked by centralization of authority under a dictator (the Caliph), stringent socioeconomic controls (Sharia law) , suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship (the system of dhimitude for Non-muslims) , and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism (Jihad) and racism (Islamic supremecy).
Comment by Vince P — October 31, 2007 @ 12:39 am - October 31, 2007
Long story short, Tano, what you’re saying is that these murderous bastards aren’t really that bad?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 31, 2007 @ 1:40 am - October 31, 2007
Jeez!
Now, I suppose, Tano will go apesh*t on my use of the word bastard and waste even more of Bruce’s space.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 31, 2007 @ 1:41 am - October 31, 2007
ThatGayConservative,
Geez, man is it like you really really cant deal with the words in front of you?
No. My long story short is that these murderous bastards are murderous bastards, but they arent fascists.
They aren’t communists either, nor are they Hutu militiamen.
Why is that so difficult to understand?
Comment by Tano — October 31, 2007 @ 1:49 am - October 31, 2007
just to finsih the thouht.
This thread began because of a mindless criticism of Krugman who made this very point. Fascism is a word that has meaning. It is not just a cuss word for any murderous bastard. Some of us like to communicate with words that accurately describe the thing we are talking about. Helps the understanding – and eventually increases the probability of finding the right solution. What a concept, eh?
Comment by Tano — October 31, 2007 @ 1:53 am - October 31, 2007
Did they really? Nope. The rank-and-file guy was fed that as propaganda, sure. But for the cadre’s true aspirations, I refer you to the history of Russian-Soviet Communism vs. Chinese vs. North Korean vs. Yugoslav vs. Hungarian vs. Cuban and on and on…
And BTW, I had meant “tribalism” in the very broad sense of “having the group rule people”. But whatever.
I will say it again: Communism and (Western) Fascism are the same when you go down to the root: to their desire to sacrifice the individual, to make the individual live for the State / group, and to use force and torture and fraud to bring all that about.
Higher in the “trunk”, yes, of course the rhetorical and ideological differences come out. Which is why we have separate names for them. One is Left – so it preaches (but does not authentically achieve) internationalism and the abolition of private property. The other is Right – so it preaches (but does not authentically achieve) nationalism and the maintenance of private property.
But the methods and end result remain the same for both: the denial / abolition of human freedom.
“Prime” implies “first”. You got that wrong too, Tano. Nazi Germany attacked Soviet Russia only after they couldn’t bring down Britain. Britain was their original or “prime” target.
And while the conflict between Germany and Russia was life-and-death on a national level, on a more ideological level it was only a “brand” conflict of Right vs. Left Fascism. The peoples in between (Eastern Europe) lost their freedom either way.
We will have to agree to disagree. Their official statements claim to want only parts of Islamic Sharia. But they have to say that, because otherwise they will be banned, like the Refah party was! Other evidence suggests they are dissembling, and that no adherent of Sharia ever wants to divide it in parts.
Oh. My. God. Have you heard of all the trouble those two nations has had with their Islamo-fascists???
Because Europeans established those states, or the legal systems they rest on, LOL
Look. Jesus was put to death by the State. No matter how the Church has grasped for power at times, it has never tired of viewing itself as other-than the civil authority. By contrast, Mohammed conquered and executed others, precisely so HE could BE the total authority – civil, religious, he didn’t distinguish. Distinguishing the religious and civil authorities is a European tradition, not Islamic.
Thank you, that is precisely my point. (I did not “pull back” BTW, I merely selected the wrong word for what I meant – “separate”, when I meant “distinct” – then corrected it.)
#25 Vince P – Exactly.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 31, 2007 @ 1:59 am - October 31, 2007
I have another one in mod… stay tuned.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 31, 2007 @ 2:00 am - October 31, 2007
See my number 25.
Islamofascism is entirely appropiate… though personally I dont use that term as it enables people looking for an excuse to quibble about semantics.
I prefer to keep it simple, since it essentially is:
Islam is the ideology, Global Imposition of Sharia is their goal , and Jihad is the means.
Comment by Vince P — October 31, 2007 @ 2:17 am - October 31, 2007
You know what they say.. fight fire with fire.
Comment by Vince P — October 31, 2007 @ 2:18 am - October 31, 2007
How do you know they’re bastards? Are you saying they don’t have fathers? That’s probably news to them, as it is not unheard for a man to have 50 + children.
You know words like bastards mean something, and you’re very disrepectful to those children of mothers who wished not to be oppressed by a patriarchy and instead chose to raise a child in the dark empire of the chimpereor with the hope that one day the Rodham will deliver Amerika from the curse of responsiblity.
Comment by Vince P — October 31, 2007 @ 2:22 am - October 31, 2007
Fascism, as practiced in Italy and Germany, was not a religous ideology, and did not demand the destruction or conversion of non-believers.
Which was why both the Nazis and Italian Fascists were so tolerant of political and social dissident views, and why they were so willing to support democracy in the countries they conquered like Norway and France.
Which was also why they were so openly supportive of ethnic and other groups that deviated from the prescribed Aryan norm and certainly not describing them as “subhuman”.
And which certainly was why they did not conduct elaborate ceremonies with their own sets of liturgy, vestments, and rituals, and they certainly didn’t construct their own places for such worship.
But this one is the most entertaining one.
Yeah, I kinda get upset when I see my fellow countrymen refusing to use their brains, to analyze a problem rationally and find the best solution, but rather rely on simplistic ultra-boogyman analogies that merely provide cover for policy alternatives that are themselves never evaluated rationally.
Which is why Krugman regularly compares Bush and the Bush administration to Hitler and the Nazis.
Which is why Krugman denies that Iran supports terrorism.
And which is also why, Tano, we don’t believe you when you and Krugman mouth that these people are “murdering” or a “threat” — because if they were, you wouldn’t be advocating policies to protect and strengthen them.
You and Krugman are “rational” in the sense that the universe you occupy does have one overriding rule of logic that you follow unerringly: “Bush bad”.
But in terms of reality, things don’t quite work that way.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 31, 2007 @ 3:36 am - October 31, 2007
If there’s no such thing as Islamo-Fascists…
Then, who killed all those people on 9-11?
9-11 must have been an inside job.
Now, the circle is complete.
Comment by V the K — October 31, 2007 @ 5:16 am - October 31, 2007
“This is why Western fascists, such as Hitler and the Nazis, often found that Communist Party members made their best recruits. ”
ILC–this statement is just factually wrong. Although it is certainly true that some former communists/socialists in Germany ended up supporting Hitler, if you look at voting patterns for the Nazi party former communist/socialist party members were the groups least likely to support Hitler. Many of course were placed in the first concentration camps and murdered.
Comment by brendan — October 31, 2007 @ 6:25 am - October 31, 2007
Krugman and Tano are reciting talking points on Islamofascism that likely originated here from the Soros group Center for American Progress.
From WSJ:
Comment by Bilby — October 31, 2007 @ 6:43 am - October 31, 2007
By just calling them “Murderous bastards” Tano is denying the reality that the 9-11 hijackers and those who gave them their orders, the 3-11 train bombers, the 7/7 and 7/11 train bombers, the Bali bombers, the people murdering American soldiers in Iraq, the people who beheaded Daniel Pearl, and the people firing rockets at schools and blowing up pizza parlors in Israel share a common ideology and a common goal. To him, these are all random events that have nothing in common with each other. Nothing at all.
Comment by V the K — October 31, 2007 @ 7:18 am - October 31, 2007
Off-Topic: A couple of weeks ago when I met GPW, I postulated that Hilldog was so programmed and robotic, the best shot at taking her out would be to throw her such a curveball that she melted down in a debate. That came very close to happening last night. Watch her struggle, like one of Harry Mudd’s androids, to reconcile two incompatible points-of-view, one that is unacceptable to the Democrat’s leftist base, and the other that’s unacceptable to mainstream voters.
Comment by V the K — October 31, 2007 @ 7:42 am - October 31, 2007
V the K, apparently, according to the left, pointing out that all those acts are committed by Muslim fascists implies all Muslims are terrorists. The dishonesty is astounding.
I found this handy synopsis on the history of Islamofascism and the use of the term the other day.
Comment by Bilby — October 31, 2007 @ 7:43 am - October 31, 2007
Neither Hillary nor that other socialist Obama can keep their demeanor while being challenged by us normal people.. they are so brittle and bristle at the indignity of having to explain themselves.
I have known this about them for a while and thus remain ever confident that they will show their true colors to the American people… and thus lose.
Comment by Vince P — October 31, 2007 @ 7:45 am - October 31, 2007
By the way Vince P, yours was a brilliant smackdown of Tano and Krugman’s magical “no such thing as Islamo-Fascism’ fairyland:
Comment by V the K — October 31, 2007 @ 9:51 am - October 31, 2007
Semantics. It is all semantics. Tano rejects all definitions of “fascism” except his own which he conveniently fails to reveal. For all intents and purposes, “fascism” is a muddy term at best and is used more as a slur than an identifier. We probably wouldn’t use it if Italy hadn’t adopted it in the 1930′s.
“Islamo-fascism” does not paint all of Islam because, if it did, it would be redundant. Clearly a state run by a religion is a theocracy. But when you have a situation like Iran where the president is “elected” to a secular position, but is enmeshed with the religious law and leaders, you can not accurately call it a theocracy.
Like so many of Krugman’s pontifications, I pass over this Islamo-fascism charge as just another example of Admiral Krugman playing with his dingy in his self induced tempest in a teapot.
I prefer to speak of “radical Islam” because the libs are already well established on record for opposing extremes in some religions. (Particularly Christianity.)
If you were to ask the Big B.O. how he feels about Islamo-fascism I suspect you would get a lecture on “painting with a broad brush.” If you were to ask him how he feels about radical Islam, I suspect he would be uncomfortably more circumspect.
Sometimes you just have to throw freight overboard. The chattering left has come up with neo-con for Jews who have left the reservation. We are smart to leave that term alone. They don’t like Islamo-fascism, because “fascism” is one of their private slurs to toss a big business and Republicans. Let them have their ownership of both “fascism” and neo-con.
o get beyond the meaning of the term with them is no more productive than trying to unscramble eggs.
But the next time the libs use “fascism” we all know how to tie their shoe laces together.
Comment by Heliotrope — October 31, 2007 @ 10:09 am - October 31, 2007
Didn’t catch that earlier. Wrong answer again! The Nazis tried to institute a new paganism, and persecuted believers of the other religions – e.g., Judaism and (in different ways) Christianity. Remember?
But let’s be generous, and take the claim at face value. It functionally reduces to:
Hey…. Do ya think that could have anything to do with why we call it… *Islamo*-fascism? I mean, carefully *not* just calling it ordinary “fascism”?
#39 – brendan – What a joker you are!
I said:
You then tried to say, without providing evidence:
But you also say:
Which was my point! Thank you for conceding it, though I wish you could have shown less pomposity in pretending you were issuing some sort of correction on me.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 31, 2007 @ 10:54 am - October 31, 2007
LOL
HT, exactly.
Good point, and I myself was using “Islam-ism” alot… but now that I know “Islamo-fascism” is a new leftie hot button that makes them flounder, I will bring it up more often.
Umm, let’s not. It describes something real (as in real bad) and important.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 31, 2007 @ 11:01 am - October 31, 2007
#47, ILC: I don’t see how a human being of conscience could have supported Hitler or Stalin. Stalin was as oppressive as Hitler, and butchered several times more people, yet, he was a hero of the left and of many ‘New Dealers.’ (I read Amity Shales ‘The Forgotten Man’ while flying to Colorado and back.) Similarly, the left has had no problem embracing brutal tyrants like Mao or Castro.
While there were semantic and perhaps philosophical differences between Nazism and communism, the end result is always the same: brutal oppression and mass graves. It would be the same if the Islamists had their way. It makes the semantic arguments of whether the word “fascist” is accurately applied rather trivial.
Comment by V the K — October 31, 2007 @ 11:16 am - October 31, 2007
***What is so funny (if it weren’t pathetic) is that Krugman has been played the fool by the very folks he says don’t exist and aren’t a threat.***
It’s called a “useful idiot”. Once he becomes useless to them (and he will, like all Infidels), they will lop his head off – ironically, before they lop off any of our conservative heads. It will be the one moment where I will agree with the all-too-real Islamo-facsists.
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — October 31, 2007 @ 12:24 pm - October 31, 2007
Guys, guys, and gals… come on. The GayLeftBorgTypes are only defending the notion that Islamo-fasicm doesn’t exist because Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinjad said, at Columbia U, that homosexuals don’t exist in Iran. Kind of a perverse revenge on him is how they score it.
It’s just tit for tat. And we ALL know that when you’re speaking about either tits, tats, or scoring, the GayLeftBorgTypes always have a keen interest.
In way, they’re trying to be patriotic by indirectly denying Iran (the cradle of Islamofacism today) exists as a Nation State. No Nation State, then no opportunity for Bush-Cheney to invade in a preemptive strike. No preemptive strike or Iranian war and the GayLeftBorgTypes can keep their “Peace” yardsigns up through 2008.
The Left is just being patriotic by denying there is anything like Islamo-facism in the world. It’s a clever way to disrespect Ahmadinjad and get some revenge for his earlier denial of the presence of gays in Iran. Everybody wins and, for a single moment, the GayLeft is united as a friend of the GayRight… but we all missed that touching moment in time.
BTW, did any of those great liberals at Columbia ask, when Mahmoud Ahmadinjad made that bold claim no gays existed in Iran, who exactly his countrymen were hanging for sodomy? Hmmm… I think our “natural” allies and friends in the Left missed that opportunity. How special.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 31, 2007 @ 1:22 pm - October 31, 2007
***I think our “natural” allies and friends in the Left missed that opportunity.***
Just like what Golda Meir said about the “palestinians” – they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — October 31, 2007 @ 1:46 pm - October 31, 2007
Lefty SCOTUS Justice Stevens sobs over shooting down the architect of Pearl Harbor. The sympathy of the left toward America’s enemies goes back a long way, and stretches to the very top.
Comment by V the K — October 31, 2007 @ 2:05 pm - October 31, 2007
I saw that yesterday too, V. I couldn’t believe it.
I beg to differ. Yamamoto was shot down with the greatest possible humanitarian consideration. Consideration of the American lives that would be saved by disabling the enemy’s most capable leaders.
Stevens might have more accurately said he was:
But that answers itself, doesn’t it?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 31, 2007 @ 2:18 pm - October 31, 2007
I think Stevens comment also smacks of elitism. Yamamoto was a part of his clique, a cultured man of “high intelligence.” Sure, he killed 1,700 Americans at Pearl Harbor, but they were from the lower classes. To the left, they don’t really count as people.
Comment by V the K — October 31, 2007 @ 2:34 pm - October 31, 2007
Associate Justice J P Stevens a “lefty”?
Oh my God, who the hell moved the sidelines and the endzone to LaLaLand? Oh, it’s VdaK and ILC… got it.
When Justice Stevens, a responsible, moderate jurist is labeled by people as being Left, well then that says volumes about how far the Court has drifted toward the irrational Right. But then, I guess to that irrational Right, Associate Justice O Connor wasn’t pure enuff, true enuff to the Right.
Next up, the irrational Right will be taking away RonnieReagan’s credentials and revising him to be Left-of-Center… or worse, “moderate”.
Stevens as a Lefty? And, just for good measure, the ultimate smear… an elitist. Quick, get a rope and we can still lynch him!
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 31, 2007 @ 2:53 pm - October 31, 2007
And the Nutty Name Caller is back… jumping into a conversation he hasn’t bothered to comprehend.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 31, 2007 @ 3:26 pm - October 31, 2007
Wait, I understand the reason for MM’s leap-before-looking. Stevens was appointed by Ford. FORD!!! Full stop. Because as everyone knows, in MM’s immortal phrasing,
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 31, 2007 @ 3:42 pm - October 31, 2007
Yeah, Reagan defeated the Soviet Union and set the U.S. on a generation of economic prosperity. What did Ford do? Swine Flu and Whip Inflation Now buttons.
And the Justice that Air Amerika Radio sings the praises of and votes in lock-stop with former ACLU chief Ruth Bader Ginsburg, yeah, is a left-winger.
Comment by V the K — October 31, 2007 @ 3:46 pm - October 31, 2007
(BTW, I got a great Clinton-Ford pic that’s in the caption queue for next week.)
Comment by V the K — October 31, 2007 @ 3:47 pm - October 31, 2007
wasn’t pure enuff, true enuff to the Right
Sweet Jesus, this moderate arrogance is insufferable.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 31, 2007 @ 8:10 pm - October 31, 2007
Here’s a good BBC news video about the Hizb ut Tahir Islamic movement that seeks to lay the ideological foundations for a worldwide Islamic Caliphate…. it’s a transnational political group.
It believes once the pure Islamic state is established under a Caliph , that the new state could then launch an offensive nuclear war to destroy all non muslims who do not submit.
But yeah lets listen to cranks like Paul Krugman and those who lick his balls and dare not associate anything like with fascism
Comment by Vince P — November 1, 2007 @ 6:10 am - November 1, 2007
oops here’s the link
Comment by Vince P — November 1, 2007 @ 6:11 am - November 1, 2007
Here’s the deal on being “moderate.” The position is razor-blade thin.
If the “moderate” accepts a “solution” that is one degree left, he becomes a moderate liberal; one degree right and he is a moderate conservative.
So, the “moderate” is forced to balance between the political forces and call out his own name. Politics is not a perfect bell curve, but if it were the moderate would be balanced on the head of a pin in the centerpoint of the apex.
I prefer to think of the political moderate like that goofy glass bird that keeps dunking his beak in the water. A moderate is almost a perpetual motion machine, but he consumes his output in keeping his balance. Power abhors a vaccuum. Moderates are so consumed with keeping the center that political power just by-passes them completely.
Comment by Heliotrope — November 1, 2007 @ 10:04 am - November 1, 2007
I grew up Southern Baptist and was exposed to a LOT of what people would consider hateful these days. anti-Catholic and anti-Mormon films and tracts were common. As hateful as the jihadist Islamic rhetoric? Only from the lunatic “Sword of the Lord” fringe. (They are akin to the white supremacist groups in the Pacific Northwest, KKK and other groups.) We have our own lunatic fringe. They are just not nearly as prominent in our society as the radical fringe is in the arab world today.
Comment by Houndentenor — November 2, 2007 @ 2:54 pm - November 2, 2007
Republican Patriot, the Fey Patriots ignored you because you represent who they know they travel this life with, politically. You are the truth that haunts them, so they turn away from it. And thanks for the link to RedState, which did indeed run a post calling homosexuality “a defect”.
Comment by KYKid — November 4, 2007 @ 7:32 pm - November 4, 2007