'Islamofascism': the new totalitarianism ?

[mix]

this is recently minted term, and a very important though controversial one

i wonder what people's reaction to it is ?

here is an article by safire :

http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2006/10/01/news/edsafire.php

(despite safire's take, this piece is a good overview of the term's history)

[aikoaiko]

1. I wouldn't want to live in such a place if thats what you're asking.

[mix]

6. which place ?

eom

[aikoaiko]

44. Places, in general, where authoritarian governments enforce strict rules

and enforce harsh punishments based on or in concert with Islamic law.

Before the ethnocentric card gets thrown, I feel the same way about about any religion and government.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. It's a totally stupid and inaccurate term. It's hard for a bunch of religious sects,

scattered around the world, to organize in any type of 'fascist' group. Totalitarianism is a feature of ALL fundamentalist groups, including the RW brand of Christianity.

Edited for spelling.

[theboss]

3. Only two posts for the moral equivalency argument: is that a new record?

The official scorekeeper is reviewing it right now.....

[Malikshah]

32. Whoever the scorekeeper is-- the moral equivalency canard

negates all-- tired phrase, overused, abused and misused.

Just as much as the terms "Islamofascist" and "Jihadi"

Inaccurate and pathetic attempts to demonize.

Stop drinking the kool-aid folks.

[jobycom]

4. It's the new Carthage.

"Carthage must be destroyed!" Every demagogue has their generic enemy. It's always a shadowy enemy with just enough form to make people feel that it is real, and that the recognition of this enemy is wise and intellectual, as though finally realizing and naming this enemy is the first step in defeating it. "We have identified the enemy. Carthage is secretely plotting out downfall. It must be destroyed before it destroys us. Give me power and money to do so, and watch the show without questioning why everything else I am doing is failing." Carthage, communism, terrorism, Islamofascism, the Axis of Evil, the Evil Empire, drug dealers, liberals... Our side does it, too: the DLC, Hillary, BFEE, Skull and Bones. Once upon a time we did it to Gore, but he's become the opposite, now.

[mix]

10. phoenicians at least

still not 'arabs' or 'iranians' or 'muslims'

yes carthage is evocative, but there is a more rich and recent history too to draw from, it seems to me, say from the 7th century to the present and one that is still firmly in people's memories

[jobycom]

20. My point had nothing at all to do with Islam. nt

[theboss]

5. I think it is more accurate than "War on Terror"

Which, to me, sounds like "War on pinzer movements."

The only problem is that it is lumping in a bunch of different branches of Islamic terrorism into one tent.

Iraq demonstrates that there is a pretty big difference between Arab Sunni terrorism, Arab Shiite terrorism, Wahabist terrorism, Al Qaeda Sunni terrorism, and Persian Shiite terrorism.

I'm also not sold on the entire "War on...." premise since ultimately, I think this is an ideological battle that will not be solved militarily.

[mix]

8. yeah but for you

what does islamofascism mean,

is it helpful or hindering in understanding 'the enemy' ?

[theboss]

9. In general, I think it is a type of Pan-Arab nationalism coupled with the implementing of Shira Law

Of course, I don't know exactly how you fit Iran into that definition since they ain't Arab. Or Afghanis for that matter.

I do think we are engaged in a pretty important battle with Radical Islam right now.

[mix]

12. Iranians are Shia Muslims and Persian

but apostates from the sunni perspective, and from the 'Al-Qaida' perspective in particular

in western public discourse, where it is used mostly on the right, the term 'Islamofascism' refers both to the sunni 'Caliphate' restoration idea, and to the Iranian Shia Republic, i.e to 2 hugely different political projects

the question i am trying to ask is : does the term reflect a social-political reality threatening to 'our way of life' after 9/11, or is it merely inaccurate and inflammatory ?

for me, it is the latter

[denverbill]

29. Inaccurate and diversionary.

If you project an image on them like fascist, it gives you a reason to hate them without considering what they are TRULY all about.

And what they are all about is ending American meddling in the Middle East. Dismantling our bases in Saudi Arabia was bin Laden's big thing, along with our ending our support for dictators in the area. I don't know if ending our support of Israel was also on the list, but I imagine it was.

The right-wing doesn't want you to think about what al Quaida actually wants however. Because if people actually stop to consider their demands, they might realize their demands are pretty reasonable and even desirable. The American people don't like dictatorships or monarchs. The American people wouldn't want foreign troops on their soil. Unfortunately, the American ruling class DOES like dictators and monarchs, because we have cozy business relations with them which would be utterly destroyed if the Saudi people overthrew the royal family.

If we acceeded to their 'reasonable' demands (exiting all American forces from the Middle East, stop supplying arms to the Saudi Royals, King Abdullah of Jordan, Musharaf in Pakistan, and Egypt, the 'Islamofascists' would have no reason to attack us anymore and the 'war on terror' would be over.

[Marie26]

31. Where does the fascism come in?

How is that, in any way, an accurate description?

[endarkenment]

41. Well nobody can quite explain that, can they?

But it sure sounds good. Next up: feminazi ecoterrorists, why do they all shave their heads?

[Marie26]

43. Islamonazis!

They sound so bad, don't you want to have an endless war against them?

[mix]

73. you're not getting it

eom

[aikoaiko]

45. fascism has become a metaphor beyond its original specific meaning

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
fas·cism (fāsh'ĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. often Fascism
1. 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.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

[Marie26]

46. It's not an accurate description

of radical Islam - that's Islamic fundamentalism. I think Bush just didn't want to use that word cause it'd offend his fundie base. Fascism is the merger of government & corporate power in an authoritarian regime. We can't buy into Bushco's ways of twisting language. The "terrorists" are not fascists: Bushco is.

[aikoaiko]

47. I know, thats the original meaning, but fundamentalism doesn't necessarily

have the aggressive nationalism that fascism does. I don't think its that bad a term. Isn't the prefix Islamo- modifying fascism to create something different than fascism.

[Marie26]

48. No

It's not a good term - it's a right-wing term, and you can be assured they are using it for a reason. Call it islamic fundamentalism, radical islam, whatever, fine. But it's not fascism! You can't change the meaning of an ideology just by adding a convenient prefix - or would you be OK w/them calling us the demofascists? Fascism is fascism - and it is a totally different ideology than fundamentalism. They are both deeply scary, but they are opposing forces. Bushco is trying to get us to think that the "fascists" are over there, not over here.

[aikoaiko]

50. Well perhaps reasonable people can disagree.

I'll go with the Oxford English Dictionary, but that doesn't mean, of course, that you can't keep arguing for the narrower original usage.

Fascist, n. and adj.

* depreciative. In extended use (with preceding modifying word): a person who advocates a particular viewpoint or practice in a manner perceived as intolerant or authoritarian. Cf. FASCISM n., health fascist n. at HEALTH n.
Recorded earliest in body fascist n. at BODY n.

1978 Business Week (Nexis) 22 May 10 Psychotherapy-as-recreation..has contributed in no small way to the kindred plagues of jogging and vegetarianism that are now so thoroughly disrupting wholesome social intercourse across our land. An acquaintance aptly dismisses such folk as ‘body fascists’. 1987 Courier-Mail (Brisbane) (Nexis) 10 Sept., Members of the NCC have been dubbed ‘green fascists’. 1997 Canad. Lawyer Jan. 46/2 It'll be fun to see what happens when the tobacco fascists run headlong into the human rights fascists. 1999 Independent 24 Mar. II. 1/2 Now a half-naked male swigging Diet Coke and being ogled by stenographers in horn-rim specs is just as likely to upset gender fascists.

[Marie26]

53. "Human rights fascists?"

You're OK w/that usage? "Gender fascists", "green fascists", "body fascists", "tobacco fascists" - I had no idea there were so many fascists around! It proves that the word has just become a general term for "something we don't like". And that's fine when people are using hyberbole in normal conversations. But this is a quasi-official term that's being used to describe an actual ideology - and word usage is important. "Islamo-fascism" is a propaganda word, intended to show just how bad they are, and just how much we need these endless wars. Don't buy it.

[theboss]

55. I've referred to my cable company as fascists

I'm not a huge fan of this word, but I don't think that its usage affects the original meaning of the word.

You must really go nuts when every political scandal is give the suffix "-gate."

[Marie26]

58. If Bush does it, I sure do.

Haven't you recognized how good these guys are at twisting language to serve their agenda? Why would any liberal want to defend & propagate a term created & repeated by right-wingers?

[theboss]

61. I'm not defending it exactly...I don't think it's 100 percent accurate

But let's not be shocked that politicians twist words. I am sure that Fundamentalist Christians didn't invent the term "Fundies."

[Marie26]

62. So, you're agreeing that

this term is inaccurate & twisted by Republican politicians. So why use it?

[theboss]

65. I don't use it...But it is a starting point for defining exactly what we are dealing with

Look, I am against the Iraq War. Was from the beginning. But I also think that we have been involved in a steadily escalating conflict with Muslims of a certain philosophy since at the very minimum 1979 (and much earlier if you happen to be Israeli).

Defining it is a challenge. I don't think Islamofacism is necessarily correct. But I also don't think it is entirely inaccurate.

[Marie26]

66. If you're against war,

you need to also be against the emotional & psychological manipulation that gets Americans into wars. This is BS - it's not an accurate definition, & it's not even an attempt at an honest definition. It's just an insult, a pejorative, something to inspire an emotional reaction of fear and anger. We don't need it. If you're talking about Islamic fundamentalism, or radical Islam, why not use that description? Fundamentalism tied to a government is a theocracy - like Iran. Fascism doesn't enter into the picture in any way - it's about as relevant as talking about the "Islamic communists." If we're trying to stop religious fundamentalism, we need to first be able to actually define & understand what those forces really are, instead of simply using convenient slogans & labels.

[theboss]

52. Words evolve

Unless you are one of those people that comes onto every thread about Israel and gives the original definition of "Semite" to prove that there is no such thing as Arab anti-semitism.

Those who use Islamofascist aren't saying that terrorists are studying the philosophy of Mussolini any more than a telecommunications "czar" is a Russian ruler.

[Marie26]

57. It's wrong, & it's propaganda

"Words evolve" in the course of natural conversation, in normal usage. This is not normal. This is not Joe Smith deciding one day to call terrorists "islamofascists." This word was created by far-right conservatives like Safire & Michael Savage, and repeated endlessly by Bush until it's been drilled into our national psyche. This is propaganda - an appeal to fear totally crafted & targeted to exploit American's deepest anxieties & create more support for war. Just like the "war on terror" gobblygook. "Freedom is marching", "war is peace", Orwell would have a field day under the Bush Administration.

Just check how many of the propaganda points this word hits:

Techniques of Propaganda Generation


* Appeal to fear: Appeals to fear seek to build support by instilling fear in the general population, for example, Joseph Goebbels exploited Theodore Kaufman's Germany Must Perish! to claim that the Allies sought the extermination of the German people.
* Intentional vagueness: Generalities are deliberately vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations. The intention is to move the audience by use of undefined phrases, without analyzing their validity or attempting to determine their reasonableness or application.
* Transfer: Also known as association, this is a technique of projecting positive or negative qualities (praise or blame) of a person, entity, object, or value (an individual, group, organization, nation, patriotism, etc.) to another in order to make the second more acceptable or to discredit it. This technique is generally used to transfer blame from one member of a conflict to another. It evokes an emotional response, which stimulates the target to identify with recognized authorities.
* Oversimplification: Favorable generalities are used to provide simple answers to complex social, political, economic, or military problems.
* Stereotyping or Labeling: This technique attempts to arouse prejudices in an audience by labeling the object of the propaganda campaign as something the target audience fears, hates, loathes, or finds undesirable. For instance, reporting on a foreign country or social group may focus on the stereotypical traits that the reader expects, even though they are far from being representative of the whole country or group; such reporting often focuses on the anecdotal.
* Virtue words: These are words in the value system of the target audience which tend to produce a positive image when attached to a person or issue. Peace, happiness, security, wise leadership, freedom, etc. are virtue words.
* Slogans: A slogan is a brief, striking phrase that may include labeling and stereotyping. If ideas can be made into slogans, they should be, as good slogans are self-perpetuating.

http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/col-propaganda.htm

[mix]

74. i agree

yet it is a very appealing term for many since it evokes the present (9/11) and the past (WWII) (in a completely erroneous way), you know the whole 'good fight' thing

it is also a part of all the 'Churchillian' imagery to evoke WWII to sell the war on terror

i have heard 'Islamofascism' used by people on the right and left, so it is unfortunately widely employed

[endarkenment]

49. "aggressive nationalism"?

Which islamic nation is practicing aggressive nationalism in the sense that the fascist states of Italy and Germany did? Iran certainly isn't. Who have they aggressed against? Iraq did, and could be described as a fascist state, but that was way back before this whole mess, and it was at the time a secular one party nationalist socialist state.

The merger of religious fundamentalism and political activism - resulting in a theocratic state - is what defines Iran. Likewise the militant sunni fundamentalists also advocate the establishment of theocracies. None of them are in any sense fascists. Unless of course you choose to corrupt the meaning of words in order to milk them for their emotional content, in which case applying the fascist label is always a good idea.

[aikoaiko]

51. See post #50 above

Hey, its not only me that think the word fascist or fascism has taken on a larger metaphorical meaning. But here's my olive branch -- there's nothing wrong with your stance of noting the difference between Italian Fascism and more modern, metaphorical usage of the word.

[theboss]

54. Syria to some degree is

Unless you believe that Lebanon has had an independent government for the past 30 years.

I think we are well past the point where countries simply invade their neighbors and annex them. Only Saddam in the Middle East was that aggressive. But Syria and Iran certainly have their "spheres of influence" to steal another old expression.

[endarkenment]

67. Actually you should research the history of Lebanon.

Syria's intervention in lebanon was more or less with the agreement and encouragement of all parties as a way to end the civil war, which it did. It wasn't really much of an aggression, if at all. But I agree that syria could be described as a fascist state. Not an aggressive nationalist state however.

[theboss]

68. Syria's not a perfect example either because its government is secular

The larger problem is that the Middle East tends to defy easy labeling.

[SmokingJacket]

75. Bing. Go. nt

[mix]

72. it isn't

the term is absurd historically and philosophically, yet it lives on the left and right for those for 'the war on terror'

[The Stranger]

63. add "in response to a century of the West's theft and exploitation of their nat. resources/wealth,"

and you may be getting somewhere.

[kestrel91316]

15. Which "enemy" would you be referring to? The one in the White House?

[mix]

24. 'the enemy'

i see what you're saying, the 'Islamofascism' has two basic dimensions 1) its use in public discourse, what this means and 2) for those that find it useful, it also means a threatening reality

so it can tell us both about 'the one in the white house' and about 'the enemy', here the inverted commas are meant as indicating a politically suspect, reductive, and inaccurate term/idea

[kestrel91316]

34. You should be using quotation marks rather than single inverted commas.

Thank you.

The Grammar Police

[mix]

70. yeah whatever

[endarkenment]

17. what enemy?

[mix]

23. why 'the terrorists'

of course

; )

[endarkenment]

28. which terrorists? be specific.

[mix]

71. how would you

define the rightwing version of 'the enemy' or 'terrorists' ?

this would not seem to require explanation

[endarkenment]

83. You define it. You used the term. Which terrorists?

You don't seem to be able to answer the question.

[mix]

87. islamofascists

i do not use this term, but it is out there, shaping people's thoughts about 9/11 and after; since i have heard students on the left and right use it, i was curious about what others thought of the term

re who 'the terrorists' or 'the enemy', it should be apparent to you that i regard these terms as politically motivated, inaccurate, and inflammatory and used the inverted commas to register my and disapproval and doubts about them

rather than addressing the post itself, you have latched on to something that is really irrelevant

rather than jumping to conclusions about my post, i.e. that it is flame bait, or that i am a freeper, relax and have a conversation

[Deja Q]

7. The truth is in the middle...

That's all I'm going to say on the matter.

[mix]

16. where ya' get run down !

; )

[Deja Q]

22. So run me down. Doesn't matter where one stands, getting hit by a drunk driver is inevitable.

Terrorists scare us. So do politicians on either side. Regardless of any opinion somebody else will always say "join us or die".

I'll keep my mind open and stand right in the middle until I am compelled to make a side. I'm the knot in the middle but I'm not doing the pushing in this tug of war being played out.

And with what happened at work today, called in by a-non-Bush-support, Bush isn't pulling ALL of this terror-scare stuff out of his ass. Some of it's real.

; )

The key phrase here is 'enjoy life while ya can'.

[mix]

25. idon'tevendrive

drinkingandsuchisanotherstory

eom

[patrice]

11. People often react the strongest to that to which they are most inclined.

Islamofacism and Christofacism are two faces of the same personality type.

[kestrel91316]

13. I am personally a lot more concerned about Christofascism, which

has gained a huge foothold in the US already and threatens us as we speak.

[ComerPerro]

39. same here

[VOX]

78. Dare I say, Amen? n/t

[mix]

79. no argument there

but a little off topic

[endarkenment]

14. not recently minted and total rightwing bullshit nt.

[mix]

19. it is recently minted

at best it emerged within the last 30 years, probably first used in 1978 in scholarly work

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamofascism&printable=yes

and yes it is 'right-wing bullshit', but it is a term and idea that has real effects in the world, i.e. like 'Islamo-phobia' and 'the clash of civilizations', or racism and war

[endarkenment]

26. The article manages to date it to 1990

And freely admits that its use is pretty well restricted to right wing idiots as it has become an emotional cue word, a placeholder for rational discussion.
Critically, it is mostly a useless term. The Iranian regime is not a fascist state. Nor is it totalitarian. It is an authoritarian islamic theocratic republic.

Nor is Iran our enemy, other than we have chosen to make them the current focus of or imperial ambitions. Four years ago Iraq was the chosen boogeyman, the same term was tossed about and they were a secular military dictatorship.

You might as well start a discussion here about the merits of the term feminazi. For me it would be equivalently suspect.

[mix]

76. benighted perhaps?

there seems to be a willful disconnect in your understanding of this post, try again

[bryant69]

18. The idea dates back older than that

Took a class on fascism in the mid 90s and one of the textbooks talked about ideological parallels between fascism and radical Islam.

However as used currently it's a just a slur, used to encourage us to support wars against Muslims while pretending that we don't want war with all Muslims just the bad ones.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Cruzan]

21. My preference is The War Against Militant Radical Islam

MRI, since that pretty much captures what's being opposed.

[endarkenment]

27. So we should kill all militant muslims then?

Militant Radical Islam did not attack us, the al qaeda gang supposedly did. How about we declare war on al qaeda, as we did against the barbary pirates, and go after them?

[theboss]

35. That was actually my thought from the beginning

You can declare war on non-states. I would have no problem with that.

Except.....

This gang may see that as a carte blanche right to go anywhere where Al Qaeda may be - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Leban, The Sudan, Somalia.....

[endarkenment]

42. This gang appears to think they have that right anyway.

They have aleady declared that the IWR and the Afghanistan war resolutions allow them to go anywhere and do anything to fight boogeymen of all sorts.

At least we would be pinning them down to which particular boogeymen they were authorized to conduct their permanent war against.

[Cruzan]

37. Because there is no 'gang' in the sense of a coherent, hierarchical, organization

It's all dispersed and cellular. Thinking there's an 'al qaeda' to target anymore when it's at best a catch all, overarching, umbrella philosophy holding together myriad different groups, is a fairly large error in strategy. By far what they most have in common is Islam, in a particularly radical flavor, and a militancy that sees violence, chiefly in the form of terrorism, as a valid and significant means for advancing their agenda.

[endarkenment]

38. I don't buy that at all.

The gang that attacked us is holed up in the mountains on the pakistan afghanistan border. Nobody has attacked us in any significant way since 9-11. Rather we have been marching around the planet fighting some idiotic war against 'terra' or 'islamofascism' or 'radical islamic militantism'. You've bought into their permanent war crap. Kerry had it all right for one brief moment back in 04 when he said this whole thing really was a police action - that is what it should be.

How about we go get the al qaeda gang and cut the bullshit?

[Marie26]

33. You can't fight a war against a belief

Wars are against people, against countries. It is impossible to fight a real, tanks & guns war against a belief system!

[Marie26]

30. It's a ridiculous word

IMO it shows the level of projection in this crew. "Oh no, they're the fascists." I find it a little disturbing that they even came up w/the term - it shows fascism is definitely on their minds at some level.

[baldguy]

36. The term "Islamofascism" has nothing to do with Islam or fascism.

It was coined by RW propagandists for the purpose of keeping the public in fear and distracting from their own crimes.

[ComerPerro]

40. meh, part real, part myth, part scare tactics, part bigotry

[EFerrari]

59. And in no small part, projection. n/t

[gravity]

56. The problem is totalitarian theocracy

But Islamofascism is semi accurate too, but I would call the radicals more totalitarian than fascism, since I don't think they follow a explicit fascists doctrine.

[endarkenment]

84. Which theocracy is totalitarian?

Iran, for example, is simply not a totalitarian state. It is a theocratic republic, authoritarian but not totalitarian. China is a totalitarian state, but not a theocracy. Words actually have meaning.

[The Stranger]

60. What's a fascist?

Why -- funny you should ask, Mr. Bill Safire.

Funny that YOU should ask.

[mix]

77. who me?

and what is the matter w/ asking? i mean so what if he's an old reactionary, surely YOU can handle him right ?

here is my take, from an old job application (it is very edited, so it's a little rough):

Post-millennium tension: Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism (TOT)

Since September 11th, 2001, totalitarianism has returned to the global political lexicon in references to “the Caliphate” and “Islamofascism,” both terms of art for “war on terror” proponents on the right and left. Historically associated with Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, and Maoist China, totalitarianism’s discursive currency collapsed with the Soviet empire in 1989. In the United States, neo-liberal pundits and politicians relegated totalitarianism to history, declaring that “democracy” and “free markets” had triumphed permanently and globally, first over Nazism, then Communism. Between 1989 and 2001, totalitarianism was a specter whose threat, it seemed, had passed. However, among proponents of "the global war on terror" after 9/11 "totalitarianism" has again emerged to threaten "the West."

Despite the work’s myriad digressions and themes, TOT's argument is elegantly simple in helping us understand the term's current use: totalitarianism is a political system of recent origin and latent in liberal-democracies, meaning its Nazi and Soviet forms were not aberrations. Totalitarianism, she argues, was constituted by state terror and ideologies that rejected “the realities of experience” and “the standards of knowledge.” Arendt shows how the first totalitarian polities resulted from the confluence of colonial expansion, nation-state formation, and anti-Semitism. Imperialism, particularly French and British, also employed “race” and “bureaucracy” to manage populations, foreshadowing later policies against European Jews.
On the subject of the work’s central themes, TOT raises several problems of historical interpretation whose resolution is unlikely. For me, the most basic question concerns the links between imperialism and totalitarianism, particularly when she focuses on the colonial expansion of Great Britain and France to explain totalitarianism’s emergence in Germany and Russia. In defense, it may be said that Arendt sees totalitarianism as the most extreme symptom of the global crisis of “European civilization,” one that is not limited to particular nation-states. She emphasizes how polities and societies become totalitarian by different degrees. This is most evident, she holds, in the way states determine “rights,” typically by nationality, ethnicity, and race, as well as by the substitution of bureaucracy for government. Civic isolation and existential “loneliness” also play basic roles in totalitarianism’s possibility.

Returning to the essay’s introduction, does Arendt’s work refute the neo-conservative appropriation of totalitarianism, used to describe phenomena as diverse as the Iraqi Bathist state and Al-Qaida? Or does it perhaps give credence to arguments for “democracy” and “free markets” in the Muslim world to deter “terror?” More importantly from a pedagogic standpoint, does Arendt’s study help us understand historically and philosophically the present global conjuncture of ethno-religious conflict, socio-economic instability and political conjuring? Does totalitarianism remain an “ever-present danger?”

[The Stranger]

82. Well, I actually meant the question to be rhetorical and addressed to Safire himself.

Not sure if that was clear or not.

[slowry]

64. flamebait n/t

[mix]

69. how so ?

eom

[angstlessk]

80. It is TRULY IMPOSSIBLE to ask an American to discuss a culture

so foreign to us as Islam or Muslim because we are the MOST EXTREME narcissistic nation on earth. We all believe America is #1 on EVERYTHING...bar none. If we believe it, it MUST BE SO!

[tjwash]

81. Just the title of this thread proves the extreme dumbing down of America.

Liberalism!

Islamofascism!

Activist Judges!

Up or down vote!


:eyes: We are living in the fucking age of duhhhh.

[mix]

86. duh

eom

[CJCRANE]

85. Notice that B*sh stopped

using the term when Saudi Arabia complained.

The term is used simply to rile up the Republican base to pretty much hate all muslims. This hatred is then used as political capital to attack specific and pre-chosen arab countries.

E.g. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia but the hatred/revenge is channelled at Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11 or Islamic fundamentalism.

Some freepers woke up briefly during the Dubai Ports scandal when they realised that Bushco were actually financially in bed with the people they were supposed to hate and fear.