0
   

PROPAGANDISTIC RHETORIC

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Aug, 2006 01:04 pm
Once again, whiner, i was not addressing you. You still haven't told me who gives a rat's ass what you're comfortable with. You should go tell your mama she wants you.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Aug, 2006 01:05 pm
Setanta wrote:
So Big Bunny, does this mean that you'd object to calling him a Christiano-fascist terrorist? How about Rudolph?


Yes, I would object to the term for McVeigh and Rudolph...and I don't use the Islamic-Fascist term, I use Radical Islam.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Aug, 2006 01:10 pm
Setanta wrote:
Once again, whiner, i was not addressing you. You still haven't told me who gives a rat's ass what you're comfortable with. You should go tell your mama she wants you.


Okay, tubby, I thought I made it clear I don't give a rat's ass who gives a rat's ass what I'm comfortable with. Aren't you paying attention, or are you just not getting enough Niacin in your Geritol?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Aug, 2006 01:16 pm
I consider that pre-emimently sensilbe, Big Bunny. McVeigh seems to have had some confused notions about government tyranny, and Rudolph--although he did purport a religious motivation--seems simply to have gotten off on the idea of blowing up people and things, for which the abortion issue was a convenient excuse.

However, even a term such as radical Islam is inexact. The Muslim fundamentalists who won the election in Algeria, and who were then put out of business by a military coup, can certainly be described as a part of radical Islam, but they aren't alleged to be engaged in international terrorism. They wouldn't be involved in any form of "terrorism," if the army there had not put them out of business.

One of the reasons i object to the use of the term is the inexact nature of it. If one means Hamas, one should say Hamas. If one means the Taliban, one should say the Taliban. Lumping them altogether leads to political hebitude, to a failure of understanding, and it strongly risks demonizing all Muslims--which i suspect is the object of most people who use a term such as islamo-fascist. Gunga Din, who has his own cute, little puerile rhetoric, refers to Muslims as Slammites, considers every last one of them a terrorist and has just today stated that we are at war with a religion and should bomb Mecca and Medina. I think demonizing terms such as islamo-fascist are conducive to such attitudes, even if the reaction of most people is not going to be as extreme.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Aug, 2006 01:58 pm
Yeah, it must be the term "islamic-fascist" that gets people upset at them. It surely can't be the fact that these people fly planes into buildings, blow themselves up in cafes, and cut the throats of innocents. They are being demonized by rhetoric. The poor dears.

The term "Islamic terrorist" works just fine, even if it disturbs your politically correct sensibilities.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Aug, 2006 02:04 pm
Scratch all of that--Tico's snot doesn't deserve being entertained with a response. I have not objected to the term islamic terrorist--Tico once again proves himself a liar.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Aug, 2006 02:37 pm
Setanta wrote:
Scratch all of that--Tico's snot doesn't deserve being entertained with a response.


Hey, genius ... you responded.

Setanta wrote:
I have not objected to the term islamic terrorist--Tico once again proves himself a liar.


Having never said you objected to the term islamic terrorist, I consider your calling me a "liar" itself a lie. It's called "reading comprehension," Setanta. It's never been your strong suit, but you clearly haven't been hitting on all cylinders today. It would help if you'd stop making unwarranted assumptions.

You seem to be awfully concerned about the sensitivities of the terrorists ... real upset that one set of terrorists (the non-fascist kind) is getting lumped in with another set (the fascists). The point being: It is the acts of the terrorists that are demonizing them, not the labels they are given by those who oppose them.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Aug, 2006 04:37 pm
Setanta wrote:


I know you are sufficiently perceptive to see that the term ought not automatically to apply to all Muslims. I also know that there was a time, not so long ago, when you blantantly slandered Muslims, and it is the tendancy which people have, even if you are no longer one of them, to tar all Muslims with such an epithet to which i object.

For clarification--The phrase in blue is incorrect. Some people may believe your assessment of the dreaded towelhead incident is accurate, and some people just like to say it is true.

For general information--Slander is an act of defaming a person by oral assertion of untrue statement with an intention to hurt his reputation and honor. I slandered terrorists, not Muslims. Though some here disagreed, I do like to call dibs on my meaning. I slurred terrorists. I have known with no doubt since I was very young, that it is impossible to say "All _____ are _____." So, I don't do it. I am disgusted by the religion, but not the individual people.


EDIT: As for calling the Shrub a fascist, that is not something anyone can reasonably pin on me. I consider him a heartless plutocrat, but i've never described him as a fascist, and see no reason to do so.
I wanted you to know I didn't reference you with my question--just the phenomenon.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Aug, 2006 05:00 pm
I've been learning from Setanta's distinctions (well, I knew some of them already) and agree with the usefulness of specificity for gaining understanding; I don't think whether or not we have sympathy for any given group or all groups is pertainent - understanding what is going on is useful. Lack of it is widespread, also found in the groups discussed about people like any of us. Groups do tend to be self-oriented and categorize others broadly.

I tend not to be for broad categorization in discussion at the same time I'm not so sharp at elaborating distinctions... so mostly listen.

Hebitude, though, I don't know what that means, even after googling.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Aug, 2006 05:20 pm
Here you go, Osso, i misspelled the word:

heb·e·tude (hĕb'ĭ-tūd', -tyūd') n.

Dullness of mind; mental lethargy.

[Late Latin hebetūdō, from Latin hebes, hebet-, dull.]

****************************************

I agree that people tend to, in general, see others who are not like them, or who don't live in sufficient proximity to be well known, in broad and ill-defined stereotypes. The stereotypes can become dangerous as demonizing, however, precisely because they are vague and inexact. A Muslim terrorist specifically refers to people who commit acts which are pleased to describe as acts of terror. However, a term such as islamo-fascist does not specify that the person so described is a terrorist. If is a short propagandistic hop from asserting in that vague generalized manner to which you justifiably refer that all Muslims yearn for the return of the Caliphate, to asserting that all Muslims want to acheive world-domination, hence they are "islamo-fascists," hence they are no better than, and no different than, terrorists. At such point, of course, any measures taken against them, however heinous one might otherwise consider those actions, become plausible. (It is, of course, the propagandistic use of the term which concerns me here.)

So, i object to the characterization because it is inaccurate, and because it has become a buzz-phrase for rightwingnuts who wish to slander Muslims, and because for both of the reasons, it is subject to being broadly and inexactly applied, with the result that all Muslims are demonized, whether or not they deserve to be described as terrorists. It is always disturbing when this sort of thing occurs--such as during the Second World War when the "Japs" were demonized as slant-eyes and slope-heads, and eventually, anyone with "yellow" skin and an epicanthal fold which makes the eye appears "slanted," becomes the enemy. I think the process is now at work to demonize anyone who appears to be middle eastern, or who is assumed to be Muslim.
0 Replies
 
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Aug, 2006 05:34 pm
Long first post Set, but, as someone else already pointed out, well worded. I find myself in full agreement with your statements. But I fear the definition of 'fascism' is becoming more and more synonym for 'axis of evil' in itself. Meaning that, without even understanding what fascism means, they do believe it is evil. This makes it far more easier to slander anyone by calling them a fascist, howver inaccurate it may be, because to most it means just plain evil.

'Slammite' , or 'islamo-fascist'. Such terms are an expression of fear, and more specifically a fear bred out of ignorance. You and a few more like you try to show the truth and dispel some of that fear, and I laud you for it. Let's hope it works.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Aug, 2006 06:15 pm
Thank you for your kind remarks, Naj. I see this happening already. That shify-eyed bastard Putin, former KGB spy, and head of the FSB under Boris Yeltsin, has already started the Chicken Little cry of "War on Terror! War on Terror!" with regard to the war in the Caucasus. Nevermind that the Chechens and the Ingush have consistently resisted the Russian advance or rebelled against the Russian occupation for nearly two centuries--they have become "islamo-fascists," very much to the advantage of Putin's relations with the rest of the "West."

I think "islamo-fascist" will come to mean to the industrialized world what "commie" meant in the depth of the cold war.
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Aug, 2006 03:07 pm
The New York Times ran another article today that echoes this very issue: Does Calling It Jihad Make It So?

Here's the beginning of the article:

Quote:
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Aug, 2006 05:16 pm
Interesting contribution, Shapeless, thanks. I do think that political "leaders" rely upon the ignorance of the population. I don't suggest that they think that the population in general is not sufficiently intelligent to understand the complexities which make the situation in Chechnya, for example, radically different from the situation in the Lebanon. Rather, i think that they prefer that people do not examine the complexities, that rather, they (the populace in general) repose a trust in political "leadership," and leave the details to those who claim to be leaders. Therefore, it is easier to blur the distinction between genuine and broad security interests (such as al Qaeda operating with impunity under Taliban protection in Afghanistan), and specific and venal interests (invading Iraq to take control of the nation in the world with the second largest proven reserves of "light, sweet crude," and to establish military bases in the middle east). Anyone who denies that the latter was the objective of the PNAC from a time long before the Shrub was even elected is either willfully ignorant (the desired objective of political "leadership" as described above), or hopelessly ill-informed and/or naive. Once having invaded Iraq, how much better to have anyone and everyone carrying a gun or planting a bomb simply lumped together as "islamo-fascists," as a cancer which must be excised.

Government do not want the uncertainties attendant upon an understanding of just how complex and difficult these situations are or have become (especially as a result of the ineptitude of the "leadership" which has gotten us involved in dubious enterprises) to obtrude upon the loyalty and support of the populace. Better for the populace to simply see all Muslims and "islamo-fascists" and to adopt a "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" attitude.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Aug, 2006 09:34 pm
"A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to farce, or a tragedy, or perhaps both. "

James Madison
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 12:25 pm
Quote:
It's Fascism -- And It's Islamic
By Victor Davis Hanson


George Bush recently declared that we are at war with "Islamic fascism." Muslim-American groups were quick to express furor at the expression. Middle Eastern autocracies complained that it was provocative and insensitive.

Critics of the term chosen by the president, however, should remember what al-Qaida, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas and other extremist Muslim groups have said and done. Like the fascists of the 1930s, the leaders of these groups are authoritarians who brook no dissent in their efforts to impose a comprehensive system of submission upon the unwilling.

Osama bin Laden urged Muslims to kill any American they could find, and then tried to fulfill that vow on Sept. 11. Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah bragged that "the Jews love life, so that is what we shall take away from them" - and then started a war. Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, promises to "wipe out" Israel, and is seeking the nuclear means to do so.

Sharia law and dreams of pan-Islamic global rule fuel their ambitions. Once again, they seek to fool Western liberals through voicing a litany of perpetual hurts. Like the Nazis who whined about the Versailles Treaty that ended World War I, and alleged maltreatment of Germans in the Sudetenland, for years Islamists harped about American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, the U.N. embargo of Iraq and the occupation of Gaza and Lebanon.

But when each complaint was settled, another louder one sprung up; these grievances, it turned out, were pretexts for a larger sense of victimhood, jealousy and lost pride. And appeasement - treating the first World Trade Center bombing as a mere criminal justice matter or virtually ignoring the attack on the USS Cole - only spurred on further aggression.

Islamic fascism is also anti-democratic and characteristically reactionary. It conjures up a past of Islamic influence that existed before the supposed corruption of modernism. Like Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo, who sought to recapture lost mythical Aryan, Roman or samurai purity, so Islamic fascists talk in romantic terms of the ancient caliphate.

Anti-Semitism is a tenet of fascism, then and now. But so is a generic hatred for unbelievers, homosexuals and blacks. The latter are slurred in the Arab media, while homosexuals were rounded up under the Taliban and the Iranian mullacracy.

"Mein Kampf" sells well under its translated title "Jihadi." President Ahmadinejad recently suggested in a sympathetic letter to the German chancellor that the Holocaust was little more than an "alibi" used by the victors of World War II to keep the defeated down.

Even now, it is hard to distinguish the slurs against Jews ("pigs and apes") used in the Middle Eastern media from the venom of Joseph Goebbels' propaganda. Goose-stepping and stiff-armed salutes at Iranian and Hezbollah parades are conscious imitations of past fascist armies.

Some object that the term "Islamic fascism" is too vague to encompass the differing agendas of diverse groups such as the Wahhabis, al-Qaida and Hezbollah. But just as racist German Nazis found common ground with Asian supremacists in Japan, so too the shared hatred of the West trumps the internecine rivalries of present-day Islamists.

The common denominators are extremist views of the Koran (thus the term Islamic), and the goal of seeing authoritarianism imposed at the state level by force (thus the notion of fascism). The pairing of the two words conveys a precise message: the old fascism is back, but now driven by a radical fundamentalist creed of Islam.

Others object that fascism conjures up images of past huge armies, and thus exaggerates only a moderate threat from today's ragtag jihadists. But Iran is seeking a bomb far more powerful than anything Hitler had at his disposal. About 2,400 Nazi V-1 buzz bombs in World War II reached their London targets. Nearly 4,000 Katyushas hit tiny Israel in about a month. And the petroleum of the Middle East is the lever by which the Islamic fascists hope to overturn an oil-hungry world.

In contrast, the fuzzy "war on terror" is the real inexact usage. The United States has never fought against an enemy's tools - such as German submarines or the Soviet KGB - but only against those who employ them. Other groups today use terror - like narco-dealers and Basque separatists - but this war at this time is not against them.

The real problem is not that "Islamic fascism" is inaccurate or mean-spirited, but that this identification earns such vehement disdain in Europe and the United States. That hysteria may tell us as much about the state of a demoralized West as the term itself does about our increasingly emboldened enemies.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 12:27 pm
VDH should concentrate more on sobering up, and less on regurgitating tripe such as this...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/06/2025 at 01:22:22