Opinion
Misreading war rhetoric
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Ryan Masse:
- Count down to Keith Olbermann's irrelevant exit (November 12, 2008)
- Health plan losing steam (October 29, 2008)
- ACORN unintentionally fraudulent (October 16, 2008)
- Biden versus Palin: debate to watch (October 2, 2008)
- Anti-Palin talk emboldens GOP (September 18, 2008)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Welcome to the newest front in the War on Terror: semantics.
The uproar is over the use of the term "Islamic fascists," a phrase President George W. Bush uttered in an August press conference to describe the all-encompassing enemy waging war on the West. He and others had previously used the popular "Islamofascists" moniker to describe al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah and cohorts, but for whatever reason, Mr. Bush's tweaking of the term to "Islamic fascists" sparked a mini-furor.
Opposition to usage of the expression was largely limited to Muslim-American advocacy groups until Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., jumped into the fray with his own opinion Tuesday.
Speaking before the American Arab Institute in Washington D.C., Mr. Feingold said: "I call on the president to stop using the phrase 'Islamic fascists,' a label that doesn't make any sense, and certainly doesn't help our effort to build a coalition of societies to fight terrorism … Fascist ideology doesn't have anything to do with the way global terrorist networks think or operate, and it doesn't have anything to do with the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world who practice the peaceful teachings of Islam."
That Mr. Feingold could so badly interpret a term that checks in at all of two words is quite remarkable, but he managed to do it. For his sake, a word-by-word breakdown is needed.
The word Islamic is self-explanatory; in this case, it denotes that members of the aforementioned terrorist networks all actively practice Islam.
Simple enough, but apparently such a designation is completely inaccurate to Mr. Feingold. Maybe he would suggest we instead call them Jewish fascists. Or perhaps Christian fascists. Heck, why limit ourselves to the Abrahamic religions? Let's decry the murderous Buddhist fascists under the command of Osama bin Lama.
Of course, al-Qaeda's Buddhist enrollment is lagging a little. To apply a basic lesson in logic: not all Muslims are terrorists, but all groups perpetrating terror acts against America, Israel and our allies are Muslim. Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezzbollah, all of them.
Yet the forces of political correctness would like to make it impossible for us to even identify who our enemy is. True, Hitler was never called a "Christian fascist," but his was a secular brand of totalitarianism. Islamic fascists are different. They rely on their faith as justification for waging jihad on non-believers. It doesn't represent the beliefs of most Muslims, nor the tenets of their religion. But it is a belief rooted in radical Islam, and with a terrorist network that crosses national boundaries and ethnicities, the "Islamic" designation becomes wholly accurate and fair.
Unfortunately, instead of fighting these groups, Mr. Feingold is more concerned about soothing the feelings of anyone who may be hurt when hearing that international terrorists happen to share the same faith — even if warped — as they do.
The second part of Mr. Bush's phrase is more complicated. But if it can be agreed that fascism entails authoritarian leadership, a singular devotion to the state and severe limits on freedoms of expression and behavior, then the term seems to apply to Islamic terrorists more than aptly.
Osama bin Laden and his cohorts have made clear their ultimate goal is the restoration of the Caliphate, the quasi-governmental religious entity that ruled large swaths of the Middle East, Northern Africa and even part of Europe in Islam's earlier days. In the Caliphate, freedom of speech — along with a litany of other freedoms we enjoy in the West — will be amply eroded under Sharia law. And the caliph will impose his authoritarian rule over the whole empire.
Of course, the Caliphate doesn't currently exist. So, Mr. Feingold might be right — the phrase Islamic fascists doesn't make sense. "Aspiring Islamic fascists" would work much better.
It's safe to say that's not what Mr. Feingold had in mind.
However, Islamic fascism isn't just a future goal. It has been realized, even if on a smaller scale than the Caliphate. And technically, it wasn't even achieved by a terrorist, lending further credence to the term 'fascism' as an accurate description of our enemy.
Since ascending to the Iranian presidency, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who as head of a state isn't a terrorist himself but merely a sponsor of terrorism; see Hezbollah) has been busy imposing strict Islamic rule in the Khomeini legacy, throwing out secular university professors and building the technology to accomplish his oft-stated goal of wiping Israel off the map.
It's such genocidal ambitions, as opposed to a few people's feelings, that Mr. Feingold should be worried about. And while I'll take anti-semanticism over anti-Semitism any day, the former only acts to deny the clear existence of the latter, along with all the other ugly hallmarks of Islamic fascism.
Ryan Masse (rmasse@badgerherald.com) is the editorial board chairman of The Badger Herald.
16 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Muckrakers
President’s Visit Marked a Speech to One of the Last Groups Not Critical of Him
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
feingold is nuts.
The word “Caliphate” has become more popular in the media lately. I wonder why? When we were going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, there was never any talk of it, but now the media is trying to scare us into believing a Muslim super power is on the horizon.
A Caliphate can only exist with the money gleaned from oil profits. If there will ever be a Caliphate, it will be purchased with American dollars. Are we supporting terrorists?
Feingold is likely unschooled in the term “Shinto-fascism”, also.
I often wonder how Leftists would react if conservatives criticized FDR’s bogged down war in the North African “quagmire” in his lust to secure Middle East oil in 1942. Afterall, Hitler and Mussolini had nothing to do with Yamamoto’s terrorist attack on 12/7.
Clearly, if FDR had focused on simply capturing Yamamoto for trial (while protecting US ports from attack), America could have avoided inflicting so many innocent non-combatant deaths in FDR’s global hegemonic war.
In the end, we learned Hitler really didn’t possess nuclear weapons afterall. Isn’t it sad that so many innocent German had to die for a lie over Hitler’s WMD capability?
This brand of absurdity in today’s Leftists crosses the line of sedition. http://www.zombietime.com/hallofshame
“This brand of absurdity in today’s Leftists crosses the line of sedition.”
Yup, they aren’t anti-war, they’re just on the other side.
“but all groups perpetrating terror acts against America, Israel and our allies are Muslim. Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezzbollah, all of them.”
What about Venezuela, China, and Russia, all who fund these terrorist acts through massive trade dealings with Iran? These are not Muslim state actors.
It’s crazy that all these “tax and spend” liberals like LBJ, JFK, and LBJ were so gung-ho about national defense. Man, they just don’t make those “wacky” liberals like they used to. Personally, I’m comfortable sticking with Iran-Contra, trickle-down, “just say no,” thousand points of light, post-9/11 Republicans.
I’m at a point now where I don’t have a care in the world; we’re safe now, Bush saves, relax.
Hitler was, in a way, a Christian fascist. Remember, he was trying to eliminate the Jews and create a pure Christian race.
And what of Islam or even terrorism has anything to do with fascism? You spend so much time debating the “Islamic” part and casually gloss over the “fascism” part, assuming it to be true.
And what exactly does Feingold criticizing the term have to do with FDR?
Hitler was no Christian. Hitler was a neo-pagan terrorist motivated by pseudo-scientific racist philosophies. Hitler hated the Catholic Church, made plans to kill the Pope, authorized the murder of thousands of priests and nuns, and did everything he could to suppress the influence of the Church.
The etymology of the word “fascism” arises from the Latin word “fascis” which was the ancient Roman symbol for brutal authoritarian rule. The fact that the term applies to brutal political systems other than European (e.g., Shinto-fascism) should be self-evident.
The FDR analogy simply illustrates the Left’s current Bush Derangement Syndrome, argumentum ad absurdum.
It’s fascinating the way intellectually bankrupt Leftists invariably attempt to obfuscate (by posing specious questions) when they have no rebuttal.
All you nasty unbelievers out there please remember this: religious terrorists of any stripe are simply following God’s will! Who are you rationalists trying to hoodwink!
Feingold is a joke. He will say/do anything to get into the White House.
“Hitler was, in a way, a Christian fascist. Remember, he was trying to eliminate the Jews and create a pure Christian race.”
Hitler was anything but Christian. He was trying to create an Aryan race, which was based in mysticism.
Is Shinto-fascism a real thing? I thought I just made that up yesterday to make a point.
“Hitler hated the Catholic Church…” Actually, so do most protestant denominations of Christianity. So, what’s your point?
Speaking of mysticism, is it strange that the a president who was in the cult of Skull and Bones is so fascinated with Babylon (Iraq)? Doesn’t the Skull and Bones have a connection to the Illuminati who revere several Babylonian deities? Wouldn’t that be great if a member of Skull and Bones could sit on the throne of Babylon? Stay the course; let’s see what happens.
The only correct statement above included the term “aspiring”. George Bush is more of a fascist than Osama bin Laden will ever be. Next time, instead of calling Russ Feingold a PC thug, just make sure Karl Rove has a dictionary when drafting Bush’s buzz-word rants.
Today’s Leftists— with their Kystalnaght-style street riots (mislabelled as “anti-war” protests)— are more fascist than George Bush will ever be. Next time, instead of calling George Bush a fascist, try taking a good hard look in the mirror. http://www.zombietime.com/hallofshame
“I have often thought that if a rational Fascist dictatorship were to exist, then it would choose the American system.” - Chomsky