OPINION & EDITORIAL
‘Islamo-Fascist’ moniker meaningless
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- SSFC stipend appropriate (December 11, 2007)
- Poor plowing cuts off handicapped access (December 10, 2007)
- Cars that actually help the environment (December 10, 2007)
- Organic food: Deliciously safe (December 10, 2007)
- Diversity deserves attention at UW (December 7, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Readers seek satisfaction (October 26, 2007)
- 'Awareness' weak on Islamic reality (October 17, 2007)
- Hillel rejects Horowitz (October 18, 2007)
- Misreading war rhetoric (September 14, 2006)
by Letters to the Editor
Monday, October 22, 2007
As a former military intelligence soldier with eight years in uniform and two tours in Iraq under my metaphorical belt, I would like to point out how freaking idiotic the “Islamo-Fascist” neologism really is. For one, “fascist” and “totalitarian” are not synonyms, no matter what Bill O’Reilly might have told you. The only way to describe al-Qaeda as “Islamo-Fascists” is to stretch that category so wide that Stalin and Mao become “Communo-Fascists” and Louis XIV is dubbed a “Solar-Monarcho-Fascist.”
You’d be slightly more accurate in describing the Islamists as “Islamic Totalitarians,” but even that has problems. Many of them don’t want a single, monolithic state, which is a prerequisite for the “totalitarian” label. They’d rather have a relatively weak central government with most of the authority handled by regional councils of “the faithful.” In this way, they’re not so different from the small government conservatives we have over here. Why not just say “Islamic militants” or “fundamentalists?” You know, the labels that are actually accurate?
In summation, would people please stop using words they don’t know the meanings of to describe groups whose methodology and motivations they don’t understand? Those of us who actually know something about the matter in question would appreciate it.
Michael Crichton
mcrichton@wisc.edu
Anonymous (October 22, 2007 @ 3:25am):
Mr. Crichton, we look at the history of Islam and how it has spread through violence. When Muslims come to town, it's conversion or death. Now religion should be spread in such a way. Christians rank pretty low with Muslims, since they "won over" converts the same way.
As for Islamo-Fascism Week, it's an opportunity to look at Islam for what it really is. Whether you like it or not!
Anonymous (October 22, 2007 @ 7:31am):
It took you eight years in uniform to figure that out?
You'd probably be more accurate by not even applying the word "Islamic." A lot of people use religion to mask their non-religious goals.
Really, would Jesus have killed so many Iraqis?
Anonymous (October 22, 2007 @ 8:21am):
You're absolutely right, Mike. Unfortunately, the biggest voices in today's debate are sound-bite creeps like Mr. O'Reilly, Mr. Horowitz, Ms. Coulter, and Mr. Stossel.
Anonymous (October 22, 2007 @ 8:46am):
For those who wish to explore the subject in greater depth, a useful recent resource would be a book by an expert on Italian Fascism: "The Faces of Janus: Marxism and Fascism in the 20th Century", by A. James Gregor.
http://www.amazon.com/Faces-Janus-Marxism-Fascism-Twentieth/dp/0300106025
Gregor exhaustively demonstrates that Fascism and Nazism modelled their methods on Lenin and Stalin; and that the Fascist idea of adding nationalism to socialism was later taken up by Stalin and Mao-- so that (in the end) Fascism and Communism were merely twin Leftist sects. Thus, during the era of their big confrontation, Soviet Russia and Maoist China were perfectly correct in accusing one-another of being "fascists."
The idea that Nazism and Fascism were Rightist is an old Soviet lie that Left-leaning intellectuals in the West have perpetuated in flagrant denial of historical reality.
Moreover, there's nothing particularly inaccurate in characterizing the Nazis' Pacific allies as "Shinto-fascists." And the term certainly has obvious resonance with modern manifestations of political Islam.
I really don't see the Left's problem in characterizing that political totalitarian impulse with Islamo-fascism. Perhaps it has more to do with the Left's sense of guilt by association; n'est-ce pas?
See also "Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left"
http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Alliance-Radical-Islam-American/dp/089526076X
Anonymous (October 22, 2007 @ 9:13am):
Wow! The Herald has managed to get a Poe award winner to write a letter to the editor?!
What's next?! How much higher can the Herald soar?
Anonymous (October 22, 2007 @ 12:22pm):
Fascism: An ideology that combines dictatorial government, militarism, control of the personal freedom, extreme nationalism, and government control of business.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds A LOT like our government.
Anonymous (October 22, 2007 @ 12:56pm):
You know, those Taliban guys in the soccer stadium were talking about the etymology of "fascism" RIGHT BEFORE they shot that woman in the head.
Go back to sleep, little dhimmis.
Anonymous (October 22, 2007 @ 2:13pm):
People who think the USA is "nationalists" should try book a flight to real countries that are truly nationalist in nature.
Japan, South Korea, and China all make the USA look like "noobs" in the nationalist realm. For an American to throw the claim "Fascism" around with ties to extreme nationalism haven't a clue what either fascism and nationalism is.
Lefties, and there certainly are a lot of them in Madison, are clueless beyond the pale. They cry for the rights of terrorists picked up in overseas lands while plotting to kill americans and try to equate these guys rights with that of all U.S. citizens.
And, by the way, "personal freedom" is destroyed more by liberal democrats than conservative republicans. Of course, "abortion" is an abomination of a "personal freedom" that lefties think is somehow honorable rather than a terrible act that is a result of irresponsible behavior. I'm not against abortion, mind you, because it will always happen legal or not... But that is no "personal freedom" to hail as wonderful. Meanwhile, the liberal supreme court justices made it O.K. for the goverment to take your home and land away from you if the city wants to turn it over to a big land developer for extra tax funds for the city. Smoking bans, trans-fat bans, and all the other "we're doing it because it is good for you" crap is straight from the liberal camp. So I can't get a donut that I am willing to accept responsiblity for the cholesterol that builds in my veins, but a woman can have an abortion? Seriously, now.
If people do not see a threat in Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, they are either blind or stupid and possibly both.
"No big deal." from a democrat will mean little when Tel Aviv goes up in a nuclear mushroom cloud and the Israeli response sees 20-30 major cities across the middle east incinerated. WW III indeed.
Anonymous (October 22, 2007 @ 2:54pm):
Yeah, like the Taliban just wanted a weak government that let people pretty much mind their own business.
Please.
Anonymous (October 22, 2007 @ 3:06pm):
Can we call it fascism or not?
Let look at some characteristics.
My favorites out of 14 listed here: http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm
1) Disdain for recognition of human rights
2) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
3)Rampant Sexism
4) Controlled Mass Media
5) Obsession with National Security - (Meaning don't let the great Satan attack us)
6) Religion and Government are Intertwined
7) Obsession with Crime and Punishment (Sharia law anyone?)
You can look at the rest and decide for yourself. But, from what I can tell Islamic-fascism is calling a spade a spade. I don't care how much the apologists try to obscure the facts.
Anonymous (October 22, 2007 @ 3:17pm):
"No democracy for you! Come back never!"
See, this is crazy criticism because we, the supposedly free-est country in the world, don't even have democracy. We're a "republic" with an electoral college.
How are we going to install a parliament, congress, or a democracy when we have just become complacent with our own ridiculous political system? Election after election, we're electing the "lesser of two evils."
How about we vote out EVERY incumbent and start a new congress with TERM LIMITS? It's time to start doing the people's business.
Anonymous (October 22, 2007 @ 3:24pm):
Fascism: An ideology that combines dictatorial government, militarism, control of the personal freedom, extreme nationalism, and government control of business.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds A LOT like our government.
If you live in America then yeah your wrong.
What personal freedoms of yours is the goverment controlling?
How is the government controlling your business, name an industrialized nation with greater economic freedom? Sweden? England? France?
Anonymous (October 22, 2007 @ 3:39pm):
It seems to me Mr Crichton, despite his tours in Iraq and his "intelligence" background, remains strangely ignorant of Islam. Please, Mr Crichton, stop treating it as just a religion when you, of all people, should know that Islam is so very much more. Islam is a religion, system of law and system of government. It controls every single aspect of each Muslim's life.
Anonymous (October 22, 2007 @ 3:50pm):
Pretty pointless commentary from Mr. Crichton - like a shallow William Safire. Or a commenter on a blog who thinks they've trumped someone by correcting a spelling error.
If Muslims are worried about the term IslamoFascism, they have a wonderful opportunity to denounce the terrorists around the world and remove them from their ranks. Unfortunately these radical Mullahs are not obscure like a Fred Phelps, but instead are in the mainstream, controlling militias, policing various countries, swaying congregations of significant size. We have writers in hiding due to jihad, riots for cartoons, beheadings, suicide bombings, attacks on children schools; and yet no one is supposed to mention it for fear of "racism."
So far, the Muslim reaction has been much more focused on Israel rather than the terrorists they are producing. If they want to protest, stand up against those that are truly giving your religion a black eye. It isn't David Horowitz.
Anonymous (October 22, 2007 @ 3:57pm):
Interestingly, Hitchens has an article out on why the <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2176389/">"islamofaciscm" is a correct term.</a>
I can tell you from having spent nearly 13 years in the Army, first enlisted and now as an officer that just because you did two hitches in MI, son... you're not an expert.. on anything except MRE's. Call us all back when you're an FAO.
Anonymous (October 22, 2007 @ 3:58pm):
google prophet of doom.
ever wonder wsup in malaysia, thailand, phillipines, the balkans, the beslan school massacre, the buddhist temples, the hindu kush, the holy land, iraq, africa, darfur, mogadishu, bali, nyc, wash dc, pa?
must be bush's fault.
Anonymous (October 22, 2007 @ 4:23pm):
Mr. Crichton's argument is incomplete, perhaps necessarily so in light of the space constraints imposed by the Badger Herald. To be sure, Islamic extremists come in many varieties. Some would seek the establishment of a caliphate with a powerful centralized government, while others would favor a weaker central authority, with the majority of power in the hands of regional theocrats.
The use of the term "Islamo-facism" is an obfuscation. It is a reckless overgeneralization conceived by opponents of Islamic fundamentalism, in order to stir up opposition to its barbarism by equating it with other extremist ideologies that are more widely known and disdained in the West.
"Islamo-fascist awareness week" indeed more accurately would have been called "Islamic fundamentalism awareness week," or perhaps "awareness of the fact that the imams in most American mosques preach violence against non-Muslim civilians" or perhaps "awareness of religiously sanctioned wife-beating week," or something to that effect. In labeling the entire range of Islamic fundamentalist atrocities with the single word "Islamo-fascism," the O'Reilly approach consciously trades semantic accuracy for shock value.
In contrast, the Crichton approach threatens to trade awareness of an enormous problem that results in enormous human suffering on a daily basis for self-congratulatory affirmation of dissociation from people whose television shows he doesn't like.
I encourage all in the Wisconsin community to utilize every means available in increasing their awareness of the horrors of Islamic fundamentalism, and in challenging the names of lectures, books, and conferences whenever necessary.
Anonymous (October 22, 2007 @ 4:27pm):
Are you trying to actually understand the complex motivations of our foes instead of branding them with the labels of enemies we have defeated in the past? How can we secure victory that way? Keep thinking objectively and the Islamo-facist-communist-Al-Gorean-terrorist's have already won.
Anonymous (October 22, 2007 @ 5:15pm):
Anon of October 22, 2007 @ 12:22pm
You are wrong, maybe you are thinking of the country under Hillary!
Anonymous (October 22, 2007 @ 5:26pm):
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and tastes like a duck. Guess what A-Hole? Shove your stupid semantics where the sun don't shine.
Anonymous (October 22, 2007 @ 6:09pm):
Michael Crichton, PROVE you are an ex-intelligence officer with two tours in Iraq, and not just another Jesse MacBeth!
I AM a six-year veteran with the ribbons to prove it, and you sound Scott Beauchamp fishy. I could HARDLY believe you left two tours of Iraq without knowing who the enemy or what the worldwide danger truly is.
Anonymous (October 22, 2007 @ 7:05pm):
As a 58-years of service in all five branches of the military I'd just like to say anyone who prefaces and argument with a mention of their military credentials is retarded.
Kamran Memon (October 22, 2007 @ 7:50pm):
Muslim students who are concerned about "Islamofascism Awareness Week" need to publicly address the substance of the allegations being made against Islam. I don't mean events that say "Islam means peace." I mean serious discussions about the Quranic verses and Hadith that the other side is questioning.
These are the sorts of discussions that we promote through Muslims For A Safe America. For example, in the Religion/Identity area, we've put together "debate" handouts (one page, double-sided) on the following issues:
DEBATES ABOUT RELIGION AND IDENTITY
Why Should American Muslims Talk About American National Security?
Should American Muslims Be Loyal To America?
When Are Muslims Required to Fight, And Against Whom?
Should American Muslims Join the American Armed Forces?
Are Western Civilians Legitimate Targets in War?
Should American Muslims Work As Government Informants?
(All these handouts are available at
http://muslimsforasafeamerica.org/?page_id=49 )
Our approach is unique, because we don't present our opinions on these issues. Instead, we just present arguments on both sides of the issues, so that each Muslim can make an informed decision.
Muslim students can use such material to organize "fair and balanced" discussions about these issues. These events would actually begin to answer the real questions that many Americans have about Islam. These discussions would be a great response to the "Islamofascism Awareness Week" events that Muslim students are concerned about.
Students at the University of Washington appear to be organizing an event where they can address the issues raised by Islamofascism Awareness Week:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003963479_islam20m.html
Kamran Memon, Esq.
Muslims For A Safe America
200 S. Michigan Avenue
Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 961-2354
http://muslimsforasafeamerica.org/
Anonymous (October 22, 2007 @ 8:12pm):
Mike,
what about "German fascism" or "Italian fascism?" Are these meaningless too? Or do they implicate all Germans and all Italians?
Get serious about your education.
Anonymous (October 22, 2007 @ 8:14pm):
When I said "our government," I meant both republicans and democrats. I think it's pretty telling that the replies, undoubtedly the same person over and over, tried to deflect any criticism of the Bush administration to the potential Hillary administration.
I think the democrats and republicans are both crooked and both show glimmers of "fascism". It's just sad that you have to keep defending our current poor-performing president.
Anonymous (October 23, 2007 @ 1:40pm):
Ha! Ol' Mike there reminds me that there's a little touch of Berkeley in every state in the Union.
Let's see now - fascism is defined as "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism".
Totalitarianism is defined as "n. - a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.) The term is applied to both fascist & many forms of communist governments. adj. - "Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed"
Hmmm, well, there are shades of differences... at least the *exact* same words aren't used to describe the two, but for most practical purposes they have the same meaning. Billy O' might be right on that one.
Now, as far as "stretching" the catagory to squeeze the islamic fundamentalists into it, well, I'll leave that to all the intelligent folks out there to decide for themselves - looks to me, though, like a pretty tailored fit.
Regarding Mike's comment "They'd rather have a relatively weak central government with most of the authority handled by regional councils of "the faithful." In this way, they're not so different from the small government conservatives we have over here." Mike, are we on the same planet? Call the Wiz right away - I hear he's still handing out brains.
Anonymous (October 23, 2007 @ 4:18pm):
This entire project is retarded and will only produces negative results. The title alone is completely void of true academic merit; therefore; making it hard for anyone who knows history to take this event seriously. If you want to insult these particular terrorist whom happened to be Muslim, then go ahead but at least give them the correct titles. We have had more Constitutional corruption, market fraud, and government malfeasances in that past 8 yrs up front and right in our faces and this is the best Republicans can talk about?
The dollar is tanking into the depths of hell, we as a nation are beyond BROKE, we produce hardly anything anymore, and this is the best the Republicans can do?
Just go around yelling booga boooga booo... those brown 3000-7000 Moozelims living in caves, with very little fundamental understanding of Islam or geo-colonial politics will some how over run the white house soon to establish a caliph. A historic Caliph historyt hat even they would have problems with because:
During the time of the Kalifah Jews and Christians didn't have to fight in the army as long as they paid a tax while Muslims had to pay a tax and fight in the army.
Jews rose to the highest ranks during the Kalifah in government. There were several vazers(Vice Presidents) and Generals who lead all Muslim armies. (Which has yet to happen in the usa)
There were several slaves who became Kalifah, generals, and married "nobel" blood.
During the kalifah each religion or non Muslims had there own courts with their own judges and had the option of being tried in Muslim courts if they wanted to.
Cutting of the hands for stealing was outlawed during the time of Kalifahs if the society as a whole didn't properly take care of the poor.
Woman were personal body gaurds of kalifahs, went to the war front, and over saw the major sectors of government. The openly traveled, gave lectures, divorces whom they wanted, and didn't allow themselves to by pushed into the darkness when it came to Islamic law.
Therefore, the Kalifah return will never be practical for arab nationalist fronting as "Islamic". They know full well that tribalism and nationalism is the true goal.
*sighs*
Fools they can't even do it in their own lands. Lololololololololol....
People who call people fascist should look at the policy decisions our own county is making before they point at retards in caves.
Anonymous (October 23, 2007 @ 6:35pm):
I'm smelling another Jesse MacBeth or Scott Beauchamp here. I'd like to see some credentials proving Mr. Crichton was an intelligence officer with two tours of Iraq under his imaginary belt to prove it isn't ALL imaginary.
BTW I say this as a six-year Navy veteran with intelligence training and a few ribbons of my own.
Anonymous (September 24, 2008 @ 11:41am):
I think people are overlooking one of the criteria for a fascist government which was posted by at least two people here and resoundingly ignored: the nationalistic element. The definition refers to "nation" in both senses of the word: ethnic nation and political nation. Fascist governments attempt to blend the ethnic with the political rather than acknowledging that it is possible for more than one ethnic group to co-exist in the same political nation.
We DO see signs of this in the United States. For instance, I'm Cajun. My native language is English. If that sounds a little jarring to you, it should be: my grandparents' mother tongue was Cajun. The state of Louisiana in its infinite wisdom decided to beat the Cajun out of them when they were in school. Now we are expected to go around pretending we are really of English ethnicity but with funny accents and strange (and spicy!) cooking habits.
Native Americans, if asked, can tell similar stories. Their mother tongues were not originally English either.
Contrast this with Islam which teaches that people of all ethnic groups are of equal value. Yes, it really does teach this. Americanism, however, does not. Americanism teaches that English ethnicity and English law and English values are of supreme importance. It is as if the Revolution never happened.
Before you go trying to take the mote out of your brother's eye, attend to the beam in thine own.
Anonymous (November 14, 2009 @ 11:59am):
Very nice site!
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
