PROPAGANDISTIC RHETORIC

back in good form

Set, why not go further and drop the muslim/islamic label as well, since muslims generally dispute that Islam condones terrorism. Franco & Mussolini were Catholic, but they weren't refered to as Catholic-facsists. if labels are needed, geographic labels would be more descriptive: for instance, Lebanese terrorists in reference to Hezbollah, and Palestinian terrorists in reference to Hamas.

I shall heretofore refer to them as Presbyterians.

Once again, very much to the point.

Several years ago, at AFUZZ, one of the rightwingnuts referred to Muslim terrorists as fascists. This was shortly before i abandoned the site altogether as having entered the twilight zone, and that thread was one of the threads which convinced me that the site was a dead loss, and not worth my time. Basically, the ranting participants condemned all Muslims as terrorists, and an attempt to reasonably object just lead to instant flaming from several directions--something in which i had no interest.

As time has passed, i have seen the use of the term fascists to describe Muslim terrorists crop up more frequently. Specifically, i saw several years ago a tendancy among Jewish and Israeli members of discussion sites to refer to the Muslim terrorists as fascists, and saw the birth of the term "islamo-fascist." I generally ignored it, recognizing that there is no more vituperative epithet to which a Jew or Israeli could have reference than fascist or nazi.

But the tendancy has grown, and it is now common to see just about anyone on the right (and occasionally, some on the left) refer to terrorists as islamo-fascists. The use of the term has become so common, that it is applied to anyone who might be a terrorist (in someone's definition) and who might be Muslim. So, for example, Chechen and Ingush separatists--whose agenda is independence from Russia, and for whom it cannot reasonably be alleged that they wish to establish a Muslim world order--are branded "islamo-facists." One does not need to be Jewish or Israeli to despise fascists--a term used interchangably with nazi, it's application is becoming broader, and more common. Today, i heard on the radio a portion of the Shrub's public remarks congratulating Blair on foiling the alleged transatlantic bombing plot, and he referred to islamic fascists.

However, i know of no good reason to consider Muslim terrorists as fascists. For however murderous and deserving of condemnation in the strongest terms any Muslim who also happens to be a terrorist may be, there is no good reason to assume from the fact that such an individual is a terrorists that said individual is also a fascist. Furthermore, the term is flung about so commonly and heedlessly, that it only has meaning as an epithet--it has absolutely no meaning as a description of any putative agenda of a terrorist who is also a Muslim.

So, the most extreme of the Persians may advocate a new Caliphate, and the destruction of Israel and the West. That does not make them fascists, however. But demonizing them as islamo-fascists allows propagandists to marginalize or obliterate entirely the record of the resentments which have radicalized so many in the Muslim world. The Mossad, the Israeli security services equivalent to the American CIA, helped to establish the brutal and rightfully dreaded Savak which terrorized Persians before the fall of the Shah. If in Iran, there are many people who hate Israel, even in an allegedly irrational manner, it is understandable--it is well known among the Persians that Mossad was a founder of (along with MI6 and the CIA) and continual supporter of Savak, who murdered at least thousands of Persians, if not tens of thoudands. This does not mean that i am unaware of the racist and religious motivation of those in Iran who hate Israel--but from a propaganda point of view, it is helpful to cast all such hatred in terms of irrationality, racism and religious hatred because it avoids a discussion of American or Israeli responsibility for the brutality of the Shah's regime.

Similarly, if the Chechen and Ingush are simplly portrayed as brutal "islamo-facists," one need not look at the history of their relationship with the Russians. Briefly: In the 1720s, Peter the Great mounted an expedition to the shores of the Caspian Sea, to both attempt to overawe the Persians and to establish trade routes which would benefit the Russian economy. A side expedition was sent into the Caucasus into what, roughly, is now Chechnya. They were wiped out by the Chechen. Peter had other fish to fry, however, and other problems, so he attempted no expedition against them. Very gradually, over more than a century, the Russians pushed into the Caucasus Mountains, beginning with the establishment in 1818 of a fortress and trading post at Grozny (which has reasonably been pointed out could be translated as "Hell"), and continuing in what is known in Russian history as the Caucasian War to conquer Chechnya and Dagestan, and lasting from 1818 to 1869. In 1853, during the Russo-Turkish War which we know as the Crimean War, the Ingush and Chechens rose against the Russians, who had become much more brutal and vigorous under the banner of Nicholas I with his slogan: "One Tsar, One Church, One Russian." Nicholas died shortly thereafter, but the war entered its bloodiest phase, and was not ended until 1869. The Chechens and Ingush rose again and again, and often under the leadership of an Imam, alleging that the Russian Orthodox intended to extinguish Islam in the Mountains. The Muslims of Ingusetia and Chechnya had never had such murderous relations with the Christians of Georgia, so even under a Muslim banner, their fight was against Russian domination, and cannot reasonably have ever been described as being a movement of Islamic world conquest. During the Second World War, Russia's Great Patriotic War, the Ingush and Chechens allied themselves with the Germans--but overrun in 1944, they were deported by Stalin en masse to Uzbekistan and Kazahkstan. However, as though are heavily Muslim areas, and no effort was made to colonize their lands, the suggestion that the Russians were bent on "ethnic cleansing" would be rather silly to say the least--Stalin did not care that they were Muslim, simply that they were traitorous in his eyes. After Stalin's death in 1953, the Ingush and Chechens were quietly repatriated. With the weakening of the Soviet Union, a new separatist movement was born, and a republic was declared. The Russians attempted to set up a pro-Russian, armed opposition in the country, which was a ludicrous failure, but 70 Russians were taken hostage, and Dudayev publicly threatened to execute them. Thus in 1994, a new war between Chechen and Russian began--there is absolutely no reason to declare that Chechens are "islamo-fascists" because they are fighting the Russians.

However, it should be clear why is it is useful to demonize them as part and parcel of a world-wide "islamo-fascist" movement, the more so as Russia finds it convenient to make a claim that their war on Chechens is part of "the war on terror." Demonizing the Persians is also obvious--and it is useful to the propagandist to characterize them as irrational and hateful, and to ignore greivances they may have against Israel and the United States. The Muslims in the Philippines who have declared themselves as members of al Qaeda are in fact the direct lineal descendants of the Moros who rebelled against Spanish Christians and then against American Christians when we took the islands in 1898. Now they fight the government of the Philippines--and although they were actively in arms against their government before al Qaeda even existed, it is useful for the Philippine government to call them "islamo-fascists," and to portray them as a branch of al Qaeda. From the point of view of Muslims in the southern portion of the Philippine Islands, given that the government is heavily supported by the United States, it is small wonder that they take aid from al Qaeda.

So, therefore, i would like anyone who believes that there is such a thing as an islamo-fascist to explain what it is that makes them fascist. For use in this discussion, here is the definition of fascism from Answers-dot-com:

fas·cism (făsh'ĭz'əm) 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.

If one only applies the looser, second definition in the attempt to justify the term "islamo-fascist," then i would wish to know how one escapes branding the governments of the Hosne Mubark's Egypt, of the United Arab Emirates, Dubai, Pakistan and other "allies" of ours as islamo-fascists. Does the government of a state such as Algeria which is brutally oppressive and dictatorial to suppress a Muslim fundamentalist movement get a pass on the "islamo-" portion, and just work out to be garden variety facists?

Can anyone explain to me why i should not see the use of the term "islamo-fascist" as anything more than an attempt to demonize all Muslims as vile terrorists against whom no measure is too extreme?

I thought Islamo-fascists were considered radical, violent subset within the Muslim population--not the entire religion.

The fascism, of course, seen in the Taliban, Wahhabism type of "governance."

I thought Islamo-fascists were considered radical, violent subset within the Muslim population--not the entire religion.

The fascism, of course, seen in the Taliban, Wahhabism type of "governance."