October 22, 2007

"Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week" at the University of Wisconsin.

The Badger Herald reports:
Drawing concern from liberal and minority-based campus groups, conservative author David Horowitz kicks off a weeklong event at the University of Wisconsin today opposing Muslim extremism....

The author’s visit is part of “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week”... The event has been criticized by the Muslim Students’ Association, Black Student Union, MultiCultural Student Coalition, International Socialist Organization, Campus Antiwar Network and College Democrats, according to College Democrats Chair Oliver Kiefer....

[UW College Republicans Chair Sara] Mikolajczak said the UW Police Department has been notified of a possible disruption during the lecture and will be present during the event.

“They’ve got every right to be there, as long as they’re not disruptive while he’s speaking,” Mikolajczak said. “I actually hope they do show up.”

Chancellor John Wiley, who was contacted by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee last week, wrote a letter Friday to explain the university’s view on what he called an “inflammatory campaign.”

In the letter, Wiley wrote UW does not endorse Horowitz’s ideas “but is providing an environment where the widest variety of views can be aired.

“We also have a strong commitment to academic freedom and First Amendment rights, and a belief that, in an open marketplace of ideas, the strongest ideas will be embraced and fraudulent ideas will be exposed,” Wiley wrote in the letter.
The event is about to start (at the Memorial Union Theater). I'm back in New York, so I can't report first hand. If you are there, email me your descriptions or links to blog posts, photos, and videos.

ADDED: I heard that there was going to be an effort to fill the room with those who objected to the speech to provide "a respectable non-violent opposition." I'm not sure what that means. Noisy disruption is nonviolent. Let me know what happens.

UPDATE: Here.

96 comments:

Palladian said...

"The event has been criticized by the Muslim Students’ Association, Black Student Union, MultiCultural Student Coalition, International Socialist Organization, Campus Antiwar Network and College Democrats"

Can't say I'm terribly fond of David Horowitz, but this event is upsetting all the right people. So, what's their problem with opposing illiberal "Islamo-fascism", aside from the Muslim Student's association, of course? Aren't these the usual suspects that are always so bunched up about [creeping/looming] fascism? Is it the old "conflate religion with race" trick again? Or is it l'esprit du temps that causes all idiocy, far left and far right to converge. Or, in Tim Blair's amusing formulation, an "ongoing process by which the world's multiple idiocies are becoming one giant, useless force".

Windbag said...

Free speech for me, not thee.

If what he has to say has no merit, then let him say it, thus exposing his empty arguments. If what he has to say has merit, then it deserves to be heard.

Danny said...

Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week is the new Thanksgiving-- pull your Christmas lights out of the closet and drag baby Jesus and the Wisemen out of the basement, it's decorating time!

Danny said...

I think it's worth pointing out that only International Socialists Organization and it's offshoot Campus Antiwar Network have threatened to disrupt the protests. Everyone else, even those gosh darn hijabi Muslims, have sent out announcements calling on protesters to show the minimum level of respect a guy like D-Ho deserves.

But these are just the details that are thrown overboard when the Islamo-Fascist Awareness boat sets sail.

Daryl said...

If the university actually believed in free speech, it would announce that significant, sustained disruption of a speech is an attack on free speech and would be punished accordingly.

I don't mean a few isolated jeers or catcalls, or even shouting out slogans for 30 seconds (provided it's not one student for 30 seconds, then another for 30 seconds, then another, etc.). But if the students make it difficult for the speaker to complete his presentation within a reasonable amount of time, they need to be punished.

Campus organizations involved in attacks on free speech would lose campus accreditation and have to return all school funds.

Individuals involved in attacks on free speech would face suspensions for at least the remainder of the quarter (preventing them from getting any credit for the classes they are currently in).

That would be fair. We know the America-haters in UW's administration would not hesitate to bring down the hammer on conservative students if they disrupted a liberal speech. Not only would they accuse the students of bad behavior, but whatever liberal cause the speaker represented, the students would be branded as "anti." If they shouted down a woman, they would be accused of anti-woman bigotry and hate, and on that basis be suspended or expelled.

If the campus administrators won't take a stand in favor of free speech, why is it so wrong to question their patriotism? I damn well will question the patriotism of people who don't believe in free speech.

Ralph said...

Let us know if the hostile part of the audience wears brown shirts or acts like them.

Sloanasaurus said...

I am not sure why people are opposing islamo-fascism awareness week? Do they believe that the event sponsors support the fascists?

I don't think so.

The even sponsors are in fact attempting to educate us on one of the most disgraceful and racist movements in the history of the world. The only thing preventing these islamo-fascists from taking power and killing millions of black, white and yellow Christians, Jews, and Muslims are moderate muslims in the middle east and the U.S. Military.... but then I suppose the campus democrats and the other lefty student organizations probably hate moderate muslims and the U.S. Military more...

Nothing changes. When I was in college the same groups wanted us to disarm first so the Soviets could see that we were "serious" about disarming? Thank god for adults....

MadisonMan said...

Daryl, certainly you can include some examples! All those conservatives who've been booted from the UW because of their anti-liberal invectives.

Ann Althouse said...

Sloan, I think it's fair to be concerned that the term "Islamo-Fascism" insults the many Muslims who don't go in for fascistic politics. It's inflammatory.

Palladian said...

I don't think you're correct, Ann. Islamo-fascism is descriptive. It describes a specifically Islamic form of fascism. It doesn't suggest that Islam itself is fascistic in nature (though that's debatable). That would be Fascist Islam Awareness Week. Or something. Christians have to deal with this conflation of bad and good Christians all the time; it goes with the territory when you believe in magical beings. Suck it up and take it.

"Everyone else, even those gosh darn hijabi Muslims, have sent out announcements calling on protesters to show the minimum level of respect a guy like D-Ho deserves."

Well, given that Horowitz is a Jew as well as an anti-Islamofascist, I suspect that their "respect" involves what? Stoning? Stabbing? A spray of bullets?

rhhardin said...

insults the many Muslims who don't go in for fascistic politics.

The general feeling about ``the many Muslims'' is that they're strangely quiet about it. I assume because Islam is run like organized crime.

That's the _favorable_ interpretation.

Ann Althouse said...

Palladian, you're technically correct, but I mean that it hurts people who don't deserve to be hurt and creates ill feeling for no good reason.

Maxine Weiss said...

If people would start paying their mortgages, GWB wouldn't have to bomb Iran to stimulate the economy.

rhhardin said...

it hurts people who don't deserve to be hurt and creates ill feeling for no good reason.

So you're saying that the many Muslims approve of Islamo-fascism ; rather than cheering being freed from death threats if they say anything about it.

lee david said...

Noisy disruption may be non-violent but it is nothing less than uncivil rudeness inside a lecture hall or auditorium. Hold your protest outside and let those who wish to hear do so. If no one wants to hear the speaker will be speaking to an empty hall but combating the speech that may convey an idea that you don't like with more speech is impossible if the disliked speech is never made. No one has any idea what they are talking about pro or con. furthermore, the noisy disruptors have been allowed to steal the time and free speech rights of those who wish to hear the speaker. It may not be violent, as in causing physical pain, but furthering the precept of free speech it is not and should not be recognized as such.

zzRon said...

"Palladian, you're technically correct, but I mean that it hurts people who don't deserve to be hurt and creates ill feeling for no good reason."

Is there any other way to be correct than "technically" so?

The Drill SGT said...

Pal,

I agree whole heartedly.

Ann,

That majority of Muslims that you is the silent majority, is just that, silent or non-existent.

I'd like to believe that they aren't a figment of your imagination, but polling data gives the impression that they are a lot smaller group and a lot more cowed by the islamo-fascists than you'd like to admit.

so like Iraq, unless there is some push back against the CAIR's and the MSA's and the Muslim brotherhood, what is to encourage your average religion of peace believer to go hug a Jew or a Christian next week?

Immigrants are fine, colonists aren't. Folks that immigrate to the US need to accommodate, the larger society needs to provide a clear cultural and legal framework that protects the freedoms delineated in the Constitution, not modify our laws to incorporate Sharia.

Sloanasaurus said...

I think it's fair to be concerned that the term "Islamo-Fascism" insults the many Muslims who don't go in for fascistic politics. It's inflammatory.

Well, hmm, I am not so sure. What are you saying... that we can't use the word Islam in any descriptive way to describe a terrorist fanatic. How ridiculous.

Palladian said...

Althouse, I won't dispute that feelings might be hurt, and I think it is always a good idea to ask yourself if the risk of upsetting people is worth the cause of the offense. In this case, depending on how "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week" is presented, it may indeed be worth it. Fear of offense can't stand in the way when the message is so important. The groups listed as being offended certainly don't care when they offend people. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander... well, as long as goose is halal.

The Drill SGT said...

Ann

there are Muslims, and then there are some percentage of Muslims that support a return the the Caliphate, or destruction of the West, or Israel or whatever, let's just agree that there is some subset that wants to use violent force applied to civilians to achieve religious domination over others.

So, other than call them Muslims, or using 10 lines each time we need a noun, what should one call those folks?

this is a serious question.

mtrobertsattorney said...

I think a better term, and more accurate, is "jihadist", as in "Jihadist Awareness Week".

Ann Althouse said...

I don't see the good of making members of a minority religion feel hated. Seeing "Islam" in that term will upset people who have done nothing other than accept and follow along in the tradition of their ancestors.

The Drill SGT said...

that works for me, but will clearly insult some Muslims (seemingly by connection Ann) since Jihad was prescribed by Allah as the duty of all Muslims in his Holy and infallible Koran. That might be construed against as a slap against all Muslims... ad nauseum

The Drill SGT said...

But Ann, propose an alternative term them that is short, and descriptive of the general ideology.

complaints about how "Islamo-fascist" will hurt feelings aren't sufficent.


please provide a better term.

Gedaliya said...

I am sick of Muslims whining about being criticized for their political views. If major Muslim organizations were as vocal and energetic regarding suicide bombings, "fatwas" against writers and artists, the bombings of pizza parlours and shopping malls, and countless others acts of sheer depravity in the name of "Allah," as they are about being "discriminated" against in the United States, I might have some sympathy.

It is important to publicize the dangers if Islamic fascism, and I don't give a tinker's dam if the grievance mongers are "offended" by the use of the term. Islamic religious and political leaders turn a blind eye toward those, in the name of their religion, who murder, maim and destroy. Why should we care a whit if they are offended by the use of a term that is both descriptive and accurate in its characterization of its adherents?

Hj Rahim Clan said...

Jihad according to the Quran is not killing the infidels. It is more towards the survival to better ourselves. Studying, helping other people, working, all are considered as jihad, as long as you make an action that benefits every single person around you. The problem is, people who misinterpreted Quran. Quran is not the problem.

rhhardin said...

Maybe it's time for 8th Century Awareness Week.

zzRon said...

"I think a better term, and more accurate, is "jihadist", as in "Jihadist Awareness Week". "

Good one! I doubt that even the big wigs at the UW would object to such an un-offensive term.

NOT!!!!

Ralph said...

You could say "The Murderous Muslims", but that leaves out the political motives for the murders, and some might interpret it to mean all Muslims are murderous.
Muslims Who Murder?

Danny said...

It makes me happy knowing that, with a few exceptions, my generation is largely rejecting the desperate attempts by some of the older generation to instill mistrust, fear and ultimately hatred for Muslims in the United States. Democrat or Republican, it's ridiculously hard to hate people who you live, work, study and hang out with on a daily basis. Talk about Allah, the Caliphate, Jihad, Osama, Hamas, Al Qaida all you want. Compare Muslims to Nazis and us to Neville Chamberlin all you want. To us, Islamo-blah blah Week is not so much a coherent movement as much as it's an indicator of senility and the onset of efeetness.

Danny said...

I can't spell effeteness.

Ralph said...

Danny, if you keep your head in the sand, you can end up effete, too, rather more painfully than us old farts.

Windbag said...

Who do I go to in order to register my complaint that the term "Senator Arlen Specter--Republican" is offensive to real Republicans?

I don't think that Islamo-Fascism is offensive. Muslims who aren't fascist in the application of their religion are called...Muslims. Muslims who are fascist in the application of their religion are called Islamo-Fascists.

zzRon said...

"my generation is largely rejecting the desperate attempts by some of the older generation to instill mistrust, fear and ultimately hatred for Muslims in the United States.

When you grow up, hopefully you will come to understand that some members of the "older generation" who might disagree with you, dont necessarily have "fear" or "hatred" in their hearts, or minds :-).

Jonathan said...

Compare Muslims to Nazis...

You are either missing the point or trying to confuse. To say that there are Christian fascists is not to disparage Christians or to say that Christians are generally fascists. Similarly, to say that there are Muslim fascists speaks only to Muslims who are also fascists, a subset of all Muslims. To appreciate that this fascist subset exists, one need only notice the regimes that control Syria and Iran and that formerly controlled Iraq; one need only notice the existence of Muslim political organizations (Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah et al) that follow fascist patterns -- authoritarianism, the will to power, an emphasis on violence, the demonization of specific ethnic and religious groups, imperialism, and the elevation of the collective and of religious doctrine over the rights of individuals.

I doubt that most Muslims sympathize with the Islamic fascists. However, some do sympathize, and "Islamofascism" is one of the better terms yet devised to describe their ideology. If you don't like it, you might suggest an alternative term. But whatever this movement is called, there is no question but that it exists and threatens us. It's folly to pretend that it isn't real.

Palladian said...

"my generation is largely rejecting the desperate attempts by some of the older generation to instill mistrust, fear and ultimately hatred for Muslims in the United States."

Just bend over and drop your pants now. Best to just get the inevitable over with. But don't assume that the rest of your "generation" is ready to give up so easily. Again, you're conflating an ideology with a race. There's nothing wrong with hating an ideology whose fundamental aim is to destroy you. But as an out western gay person, an artist, and a liberal, perhaps I have more to lose to 8th century mindsets (be they Eastern or Western in nature) than do you.

AlphaLiberal said...

David Horowitz doesn't deserve respect. Let's get that straight. He's a damn liar and has no regard for the truth. He lies about other people and spreads hate.

The guy used to be on the hard left (back when there was one) pushing for ideological purity and attacking people thinking differently.

Now, he's on the hard right pushing for ideological purity and virulently attacking people thinking differently.

I'd have gone if I knew this was happening.

cold pizza said...

Uncle Jimbo of Blackfive was there. He comments that Howowitz sucked. Good reading. -cp

Brad V said...

Here are some incendiary verbatim quotes from my attempt at transcribing portions of the Ann Coulter speech at Tulane University - another October 22 speaking gig for the opening of IF Awareness Week.

www.lettersinbottles.blogspot.com/2007/10/ann-coulter-at-tulane-university-for.html

www.lettersinbottles.blogspot.com

Daryl said...

mtroberts:

"Jihadists" is not a good word, because technically jihad can mean a non-violent struggle.

It's also true that most Muslims believe the highest form of Jihad is violent holy war against infidels, but you end up painting with too broad a brush.

Technically, "Jihad" is one of the "pillars" of Islam, which means that all good Muslims (including the peaceful ones) would be "jihadists" in a sense.

Similarly, "charity" (Zakat) is a pillar of Islam. Of course, the Islamofascists donate to terrorist "charities," because they believe donating money to violent holy war jihadists is the best form of charity. That doesn't mean we should call terrorist fundraisers "Zakatists" or say that "Zakat" is inherently bad.

Islamofascism is a great word because it singles out those who want fascism and Islam together. I doubt Althouse would get the vapors over a term like "Christian Fascists" used to describe extremist Christians who want a fascist, totalitarian form of government.

Lefties defend Islamofascists because Islamofascists are America's enemies. Lefties are the ones responsible for telling people that "Islamofascists" as a word insults all Muslims. They are the ones responsible for making Muslims feel targeted--if Muslims even feel that way, which I doubt. They're a bunch of liars. The way to deal with Muslims is to have a firm hand, and not back down. They despise weakness and respect strength.

I was talking to a dumb Muslim girl once and she denied that Arabs were out partying in the streets after 9/11. I repeated that they did in fact do so, and she backed down and admitted that I was right. Experiences like that have convinced me that you can't expect to be able to compromise with those people. You have to take a principled position, state it, and refuse to back down.

In this case, the principle is that it's important to make people aware of these chauvinists. And we can't back down. We can't let the leftists and Islamists cow us into submission (Islam). Screw them. We will make their bad behavior--in Arabia, in Asia, in Darfur, and in America--public knowledge.

Danny said...

Wow, some really eloquent arguments being presented here. Tell me, back in the day when you all were protesting against equality for blacks, women and gays, how did you release your bottled up anger without the wonders of the internet?

Mr. Grumpy said...

David Horowitz's defense of Jared Taylor as a "racialist"--not a racist--is a wonderful thing to behold.

It's such a great deal that the idiot wing of the New Right keeps stepping forward to represent the (bowel) movement that is the new fake conservatism. Good work morons.

John Burgess said...

rhhardin: Just because you don't hear them doesn't mean they're silent.

Take a look at this: Saudi Daily Attacks Extremism in Islam.

There are daily protests about the extremists who blacken the name of Islam taking place. They're taking place in the Arabic and other language media, but somehow don't make it onto the pages of the US papers.

Try looking at some original sources. You're sure to find extremist cant, but you'll also find pushback.

Titus24 said...

Free Speech for all.

David Horowitz is a true patriot and does excellent work in reaching out to conservatives who are silenced on campus.

Fellow republicans it is important that we support Horowitz work as it is bringing many closeted conservatives out in the open.

Liberals are afraid of David and want to silence him but he will not be silenced.

Seriously, the event sounds like a bore. David Horowitz and 9/11 Truthers screaming at each other. What a way to spend an evening.

ShadowFox said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ShadowFox said...

So, Ann,
Will you help us sponsor the Christo-Fascism Awareness Week at UW?

hdhouse said...

Ok. I'm stupid. ISLAMO-FASCISM.

ISLAMO defined as: well its not. No results found for islamo....not a word. but I am stupid so I guess it has something to do with Islam.

Islam: the religious faith of Muslims.

I'm o'k so far.

FASCIM: 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.

Ok bright boys and girls. Can someone reconcile Islamo-fascism for me?...other than it sounds like a red meat phrase invented somewhere in the bowels of white house and made into a business card by perhaps one of the most dishonest schmucks (horowitz) extent?

hdhouse said...

ohhh and daryl...i read your lengthy spew about "lefties defend islamoterrorists"...

just a word of advice little fella, this is an adult board with actually some pretty good thinkers on it both right and left. it makes you look like a complete and utter asshole to write tripe like that here. You can elevate discussion and enlighten others or you can, as you did, pee in the punch bowl. makes me no nevermind but a lot of people won't drink your koolaide.

hdhouse said...

Ann, as a devotee of allthings Michigan related, what in the hell goes on in Wisconsin?

Pogo said...

Fine, house.

Then tell us what you would prefer we call those who want to force an Islamic caliphate on the West, that we would live under their military-religious authority?

Is there a better term less likely to hurt feelings? Or are you among those who disbelieve that such a threat even exists?

Remember though, pointing out the violence of some immigrants in Denmark has gotten people killed. Actaully, ignoring the violence by immigrants has gotten people killed, too. Is there a connection somewhere? Maybe if we just say nothing they will go away, that is, if there even is a "they". And pay no attention to the cars burning in Amsterdam. Just some nondescript young men of no particular descent or religion. Maybe just atheist pranksters.

Paco Wové said...

"...this is an adult board with actually some pretty good thinkers on it..."

If you believe that, why do you behave like such a snot-nosed, tantrum-throwing child here, all the time? Seriously. Your comments are a constant series of incoherent insults, ad-hominems, and punctuation errors. You are capable of writing like an adult, correct?

Titus24 said...

"...this is an adult board with actually some pretty good thinkers on it..."


Thank you for the compliment, I appreciate it.

Mr. Grumpy said...

Then tell us what you would prefer we call those who want to force an Islamic caliphate on the West, that we would live under their military-religious authority?

The Imaginary Enemy? Or isn't that scary enough?

Pogo said...

The Imaginary Enemy burns cars in Amsterdam

The Imaginary Enemy kills Dutch film director

The Imaginary Enemy threatens Dutch woman, police cannot protect her

The Imaginary Enemy in London

The Imaginary Enemy in Spain

The Imaginary Enemy in the Phillipines

Just keep telling yourself it's Imaginary, Mr. Grumpy, and bury your face in the pillow. I'm sure it'll all be just fine.

hdhouse said...

Well Pogo...you could start by being accurate. that would be nice.

as we both obviously agree there is no such term/phrase as "islamo-fascism"...as part of the phrase simply isn't a known word and fascism refers to the total merger of a dictatorial government into the fabric of the state (the religious element being strangely absent fromt he definition) then perhaps your definition of "islamic caliphate" might be close...alas the last caliphate references seem to have popped up on Faux Noise last night and before that in Turkey about 800 years ago but I digress.

I'm just asking that if the uber-recht (are you one? am i what? one.) who inhabit this particular discussion genre can come up with a good phrase that is accurate I'll be happen to adopt it. It isn't up to me to define it for you. It is up to you to be accurate with your usage.

hdhouse said...

ahhh Paco...care to add something or not?

James said...

Jonathan said:

"You are either missing the point or trying to confuse. To say that there are Christian fascists is not to disparage Christians or to say that Christians are generally fascists."

I certainly agree with you, but just like the Muslims, there are plenty of people who see any attack on a single Christian as an attack on all (Bill Donahue, Brent Bozell) . . . Then again, those are the Christian fascists I'm speaking about :)

Mr. Grumpy said...

Then tell us what you would prefer we call those who want to force an Islamic caliphate on the West, that we would live under their military-religious authority?

Let me wipe the spittle from your chin Pogo. You've worried yourself into a frenzy and forgotten the point you were supposed to be defending when you sputtered your reply.

Do you think the "car burners" in Amsterdam are planning "to force an Islamic caliphate on the West?"

Do you think the enemy who "threatens [a] Dutch woman" has a legitimate hope of forcing us to "live under their military-religious authority?"

You don't understand terrorism, obviously. Calm down. Tell Lil' George, Uncle Dick and Rudy to stop scaring you. Take a deep breath and think about the history of terrorism. Can you think of any examples of world conquest by terrorists?

Get back to me when you have something to say in defense of your fearmongering.

Pogo said...

as we both obviously agree there is no such term/phrase as "islamo-fascism"

We do not agree. It's a new term to describe a relatively new phenomenon. Others have called it jihadi fascism. I asked you whether you had a better name for it, or if instead you don't agree there is even such a threat at all.

the last caliphate references

From the BBC 13 August 07: Islamists urge caliphate revival
"Some 100,000 Islamists have met in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta, to press for the re-establishment of a caliphate across the Muslim world."

I take them at their word.
P.S. They think Spain, Denmark, and England belong to the Muslim world.

Pogo said...

Get back to me when you have something to say in defense of your fearmongering.

That's right, Mr. Grumpy. Ignore the violence in the West. Just keep hitting that snooze button and repeat It can't happen here. It can't happen here.

Roger said...

Perhaps "bin Ladenists?" as these folks seem to be following the vision of OBL and his perverted view of Islam. Agree that using such terms as "fascist," or "brownshirt" are simply perjorative. "Fascist" has, IMO, lost all political meaning except as an epithet to be applied to people with whom we disagree, and "brownshirt" is even worse.

Trooper York said...

[At the big conclave/street gang meeting, Cyrus, the boss of the street gang appears]
Cyrus: [yelling] Can you count, suckers? I say, the future is ours... if you can count!
[a couple of soldiers cheer for Cyrus]
Cyrus: Now, look what we have here before us. We got the Saracens sitting next to the Jones Street Boys. We've got the Moonrunners right by the Van Cortlandt Rangers. Nobody is wasting nobody. That... is a miracle. And miracles is the way things ought to be.
[Few more soldiers cheering for Cyrus]
Cyrus: You're standing right now with nine delegates from 100 gangs. And there's over a hundred more. That's 20,000 hardcore members. Forty-thousand, counting affiliates, and twenty-thousand more, not organized, but ready to fight: 60,000 soldiers! Now, there ain't but 20,000 police in the whole town. Can you dig it?
Gang Members: Yeah.
Cyrus: Can you dig it?
Gang Members: Yeah!
Cyrus: Can you dig it?
Gang Members: YEAH!
[shouting and Cheering]

Cyrus: Now, here's the sum total: One gang could run this city! One gang. Nothing would move without us allowing it to happen. We could tax the crime syndicates, the police, because WE got the streets, suckers! Can you dig it?
Gang Members: YEAH!
[shouting and Cheering]

Cyrus: The problem in the past has been the man turning us against one another. We have been unable to see the truth, because we have fighting for ten square feet of ground, our turf, our little piece of turf. That's crap, brothers! The turf is ours by right, because it's our turn. All we have to do is keep up the general truce. We take over one borough at a time. Secure our territory... secure our turf... because it's all our turf!
(The Warriors 1979)

hdhouse said...

don't worry folks. we are safe. bush is on the job. he just made a speech regarding the european missle defense shield as the "threat from an iranian launched missle at the US is too great to ignore".

i guess those are just some more islamo-facists run amuck.

oh and logo-pogo, jihadi-fascists makes just about as much sense (none) as a term.

Don't you get it? It isn't a real term. It is a soundbite term. It has NO meaning. It isn't just inprecise, it isn't ANYTHING. It means NOTHING. Zero. Nadda.

What is so hard here?

Gedaliya said...

Chris Hitchens weighs in on the question:

Defending the Term Islamofascism

An excerpt:

...The most obvious points of comparison would be these: Both movements are based on a cult of murderous violence that exalts death and destruction and despises the life of the mind. ("Death to the intellect! Long live death!" as Gen. Francisco Franco's sidekick Gonzalo Queipo de Llano so pithily phrased it.) Both are hostile to modernity (except when it comes to the pursuit of weapons), and both are bitterly nostalgic for past empires and lost glories. Both are obsessed with real and imagined "humiliations" and thirsty for revenge. Both are chronically infected with the toxin of anti-Jewish paranoia (interestingly, also, with its milder cousin, anti-Freemason paranoia). Both are inclined to leader worship and to the exclusive stress on the power of one great book. Both have a strong commitment to sexual repression—especially to the repression of any sexual "deviance"—and to its counterparts the subordination of the female and contempt for the feminine. Both despise art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence; both burn books and destroy museums and treasures.

Trooper York said...

Wild Bill Hickok: You know the sound of thunder, Mrs. Garret?
Alma Garret: Of course.
Wild Bill Hickok: Can you imagine that sound if I asked you to?
Alma Garret: Yes, I can, Mr. Hickok.
Wild Bill Hickok: Your husband and me had this talk, and I told him to head home to avoid a dark result. But I didn't say it in thunder. Ma'am, listen to the thunder.
(Deadwood 2004)

Pogo said...

It is a soundbite term. It has NO meaning.

Hence our disagreement.

hdhouse said...

then what does it mean. it should be a crystal clear definition as words are clearly defined...so out with it boy...what exactly does it mean.

Pogo said...

Hitchen's article cannot be improved upon.

SGT Ted said...

Jihad according to the Quran is not killing the infidels. It is more towards the survival to better ourselves. Studying, helping other people, working, all are considered as jihad, as long as you make an action that benefits every single person around you. The problem is, people who misinterpreted Quran. Quran is not the problem.

Don't come here and tell lies about the Koran. All that violent stuff is in there and is preached by the extremists who run Islam.

Trooper York said...

Marcus Tullius Cicero: When confronted by a hungry wolf, it is unwise to goad the beast, as Cato would have us do. But it is equally unwise to imagine the snarling animal a friend and offer your hand, as Pompey does.
Pompey Magnus: Perhaps you would have us climb a tree! 7
(Rome, HBO 2006)

SGT Ted said...

hd,

Are you being purposefully dense?

What part of Bin Ladens call to establish a Global Caliphate don't you get?

The heart of Islam, Mecca, is run by the Wahhabi sect, which is Bin Ladens inspiration, along with the Koran. They kill apostates in saudi Arabia, as well as the other Sharia dictates, which are antitheitcal to liberal(the non-Marxist kind) western values.


The Muslim Student Association was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Egyptian Sunni terrororist organization that preaches Islamic supremacy. Arafat, an Egyptian, came from the Muslim Brotherhood, where he was banished from Egypt for plotting to kill their president.

What part of this makes you lefties think that Islam isn't a part of the problem here? Or are you just playing stupid to maintain your "tolerance" cred with your lefty brethren?

ShadowFox said...

It is simply amazing, but the Hitchens quotation describes James Dobson/Pat Robertson/Bill Donahue to a T.

So when are we going to have a Christo-fascist awareness week then? It's time to purge these leeches before they start another pogr... er... crusade.

Pogo said...

"So when are we going to have a Christo-fascist awareness week "

Once they take down a few buildings in NY, blow up a Spanish train, and burn cars in the street in Amsterdam and Paris, have at it.

Trooper York said...

Her hands were on her thighs. her knees were widely separated. This knee position indicated that she knew herself to be a woman held in the deepest and most intimate form of slavery.
(Blood Brothers of Gor, John Norman)

Mr. Grumpy said...

It can't happen here. It can't happen here.

Do you really think an Islamic caliphate has been forced on the West Pogo? Do you really believe that we live under their military-religious authority? Of course you don't. In other words, we can agree that it didn't happen here.

Or maybe you're talking about an incident of terrorism. Do you think the attack in September 2001 was the first or the last terrorist strike in the US? It was neither.

Did you panic after the first attack on the WTC? Did you stock up on duct tape? Did you make the ultimate sacrifice for your country and go shopping? Did you insist that we were about to have an Islamic caliphate forced on the West? Probably not. You probably blamed Clinton.

When we were attacked on 9-11, did you blame Bush? Probably not. You probably blamed Clinton.

Do you believe that there is a legitimate threat of an Islamic caliphate being forced on the West? Do you believe that we face an enemy who has the power to force us to live under their military-religious authority? I don't, and I bet you don't either. The enemy you describe is imaginary; it does not exist in fact. It only exists in the words of fearmongers like Lil' George, Uncle Dick, Tough Guy Rudy and you.

While you chatter irrationally about the big, bad, "believable" threat of occupation and rule of the West by an Islamic caliphate, try to remember that "the West" invaded and occupies Afghanistan and Iraq. Somehow you've come to believe it's the other way around.

So go check for Islamo-fascists under your bed if that makes you feel safer. It doesn't change the reality of the world. However real your fears may be to you, they are irrational. "Islamo-fascism" won't be in control of "the West" anytime soon.

Trooper York said...

"Do Masters ever love their slaves?" she asked.
"Often," I said. Indeed, a female slave is the easiest of all women to love; too, of course, she is the most natural of all women to love; these things have to do with the equations of nature, in particular, those of dominance and submission. To a man, a female slave is a dream come true. A free woman, understandably, cannot begin to compete with the female slave for a man's love.
( Blood Brothers of Gor, John Norman)

hdhouse said...

sgt ted...take a deep breath there big fella.

i'm trying to be precise. a certain cabal here, possibly after 6 years of generalities and poorly stated "leadership" is struggling because they are finally caught up in their own generalities.

Hitchens can be improved upon. Vastly improved upon. What he did is answer to the question "what does the color yellow look like" and he answers will its kinda a cross between red and green but closer to green. that's all well and good but defining a pseudo-term e.g. Islamo-fascism or Jihadi-fascism by telling us what it is "like" doesn't define it. It compares it.

It is a very badly made term that, and I repeat, THAT HAS NO MEANING because one of the words e.g. "ISLAMO" isn't a word.

Get with the program pls.

Mr. Grumpy said...

Once they take down a few buildings in NY, blow up a Spanish train, and burn cars in the street in Amsterdam and Paris, have at it.

We don't have to wait. Here's a starter list:

* (September 11, 2006) David McMenemy attempted a suicide bombing of a women's clinic in Davenport, Iowa.

* (November 2001) After the genuine 2001 anthrax attacks, Clayton Waagner mailed hoax letters containing a white powder to 554 abortion clinics.

* (July 4, 2005) An abortion clinic in Palm Beach, Florida was the target of arson.

* (December 12, 2005) Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at an abortion clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana.

* (April 25, 2007) A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death.

* (May 9, 2007) An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

The first meeting of Christo-fascist awareness week will be held at Pogo's hovel. Squirrel kabobs and moonshine will be provided by the host.

Justin said...

Mr. Grumpy said...

It can't happen here. It can't happen here.

In other words, we can agree that it didn't happen here.


Read what you quoted. He's not saying it did happen. He's saying it can happen.

Did you ... Probably not. You probably blamed Clinton.

Argument by conjecture is so lame.

Islamo-fascism" won't be in control of "the West" anytime soon.

Who is going to stop it? Bin Laden and Al Queda obviously have a global caliphate in mind. Do you really think they are unable to accomplish this goal if they are unopposed?

Trooper York said...

Elizabeth was, however, to my satisfaction, taught a large number of things which, to my mind, were more appropriate to the training of slave girls, including a large number of dances, dozens of songs, and an unbelievable variety of kisses and caresses. The sheer mechanics of her repertoire, theoretically outfitting her to give exquisite pleasure to anyone from an Ubar to a peasant, are much too complex and lengthy to recount here.
(Slave Girls of Gor, John Norman)

Justin said...

hdhouse said...

It is a very badly made term...

I agree, it could be improved.

THAT HAS NO MEANING because one of the words e.g. "ISLAMO" isn't a word.

I don't think anyone ever claimed that "Islamo" was a word. And I don't think anyone ever claimed that "Islamo-fascism" was a term made up of two words.

The "Islamo" portion of the term is obviously meant to refer to Islam. The "fascism" part is obviously meant to describe the movement as having many of the same characteristics of the facist movements of the past. Therefore, the term "islamo-fascism" describes a movement that claims to be based on the religion of Islam and seeks to force its beliefs and will on the population in a manner reminiscent of a fascist government, most likely the Nazis.

You can get hyper-technical all you want. The "MEANING" of the word is clear. Denying that it has any meaning only shows that you're being willfully ignorant.

Mr. Grumpy said...

Do you really think they are unable to accomplish this goal if they are unopposed?

And the winner for the dumbest question of the day goes to...

Justin, how do you imagine that bin Laden will deliver his occupying force to the United States? How big do you think the occupying force will need to be? Or do you believe he will rule the West by mind control?

It can't happen Justin. In the real world, objective observers see that bin Laden and AQ do not have the capability to "force an Islamic caliphate on the West." There is no enemy in existence in the Islamic world that has this capability. It's an imaginary enemy, Justin.

Just like I said before. The only reason I'm repeating myself is because Justin needed a second helping.

Pogo said...

"It can't happen Justin."

Demographically, they'll replace the West in the EU within a few generations, so they very likely will not need the violent approach except to keep the locals cowed.

Once they control the electorte, however, it's all over.

Justin said...

Mr. Grumpy said...

And the winner for the dumbest question of the day goes to...

There's not reason to start throwing around insults. If you disagree with me, that's fine. Obviously you do. But if you're not going to act like an adult, then there's no reason to continue. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was just a momentary lapse in civility.

Justin, how do you imagine that bin Laden will deliver his occupying force to the United States? How big do you think the occupying force will need to be? Or do you believe he will rule the West by mind control?

It can't happen Justin. In the real world, objective observers see that bin Laden and AQ do not have the capability to "force an Islamic caliphate on the West." There is no enemy in existence in the Islamic world that has this capability. It's an imaginary enemy, Justin.


If Osama bin Laden got together his army and and started marching west towards France with the stated purpose of stealing a boat and sailing to Washington, he wouldn't make it out of wherever he is. You're right. In conventional terms, his military is no match for ours. Obviously, a conventional military invasion is not what they have in mind.

And again, if they are unopposed, who will stop them? This is a serious question. You say there is no threat. They have stated, in no uncertain terms, that they want to establish a new Islamic caliphate. If that is their goal, and everyone believes, like you, that there is no threat, what is to stop them?

Mr. Grumpy said...

If that is their goal, and everyone believes, like you, that there is no threat, what is to stop them?

I don't accept that world conquest is their goal. But let's assume for a moment that world conquest is their genuine goal. In that case, reality will stop them. They don't have the numbers or the power to invade, occupy and rule. It's not even a close call.

That's why I characterize the enemy that Pogo describes as an imaginary enemy. It simply doesn't exist in our world. It exists in the words of fearmongers and in the minds of the frightened.

It goes without saying that political discussions and policy decisions based on imaginary enemies are a waste of time and money.

If the fearmongers really believe that an enemy exists who:

(a) is determined to establish an Islamic caliphate in the West, and
(b) and has the capability to force us to live under their military-religious authority,

then these fearmongers should be screaming for a draft to improve our ability to fight this enemy.

These fearmongers ought to be ashamed at themselves for misleading and scaring the gullible.

Pogo said...

If the fearmongers really believe that an enemy exists who:

There are many other thens far superior to the silly one you proposed.

You seem unaware of many people who have seen what is happening in the EU and drawn a completely different conclusion. I do not find your dismissive and belittling epithets terribly persuasive.

The EU is drifting more and more to an anti-immigrant posture at the same time they are becoming a more restrictive society over all. I see more violence ahead.

But what will England, Spain, Italy, and Amsterdam do when the Islamists make up the majority of the electorate?

Pogo said...

fearmongers ought to be ashamed

While I say that those refusing to see what is right before their own eyes ought to be ashamed.

Roger said...

Mr Grumpy: may I suggest you are thinking in extraordinarily classic political-military terms--consider other possibilities than conventional military forces--that is so 20th century.

Justin said...

Mr. Grumpy said...

I don't accept that world conquest is their goal.

Why not? They have declared it their goal. It comes straight from their own mouths. I see no reason not to take them at their word. Many people didn't believe that Hitler's goal was to eradicate the Jews. One lesson we should learn from history is, as crazy as they may sound, the maniacs are usually serious about what they plan to do.

But let's assume for a moment that world conquest is their genuine goal. In that case, reality will stop them. They don't have the numbers or the power to invade, occupy and rule. It's not even a close call.

Again, you're thinking too conventionally. They don't have to sail up the Potomac to be an existential threat. And they don't have to be successful in their world conquest to be a serious threat to our national security.

If the fearmongers really believe that an enemy exists ... then these fearmongers should be screaming for a draft to improve our ability to fight this enemy.

This reasoning is flawed. There are many ways to fight an enemy. Enlarging the military through a draft is only one aspect of one of those ways. It is certainly possible to believe that the threat exists but that a draft is not the appropriate way the address it.

Mr. Grumpy said...

Mr Grumpy: may I suggest you are thinking in extraordinarily classic political-military terms--consider other possibilities than conventional military forces--that is so 20th century.

Roger, you may, but only if you explain how the enemy Pogo describes will force an Islamic caliphate on the West and require us to live under their military-religious authority.

I don't believe an Islamo-fascist enemy exists that is capable of what Pogo describes. Apparently you do. Since Pogo and Justin can't establish how this is possible, you're welcome to step up to the plate for your shot at glory.

Pogo said...

"Since Pogo and Justin can't establish how"

Well, not to your satisfaction, an unmeetable demand of course. So why bother?

But it has begun.
Here, on US campuses.

"The radical Muslims on American campuses are getting more belligerent, far more militant,” author and lecturer Nonie Darwish tells me. “They have perfected their intimidation and disruption techniques.”
They quadruple-teamed Darwish and did not stop until Darwish ended her lecture. Twenty to thirty minutes of soft-core, well-choreographed, goon squad behavior. “They are Hamas-trained” says Darwish.

“And all the while,” Darwish says, “the Jewish students cringed and cowered, so afraid that they might have hurt Muslim feelings. (Or rather, that the Muslims might physically hurt them afterwards. According to Darwish, one Jewish student told her that “she “was locking her door. I am scared.”)

And then she is silent. Softly, she says: “We are fighting an avalanche. We are too few. I am frightened by my culture of origin. I am scared of my own people."

Gedaliya said...

Since Pogo and Justin can't establish how this is possible, you're welcome to step up to the plate for your shot at glory.

Nonsense. Both gentlemen have made convincing arguments supporting the proposition that Islamic fascism poses an existential threat to our nation and culture. You're simply being willfully obtuse in refusing to acknowledge this fact.

Moreover, the war in Iraq has significantly reduced this threat in the near term. Why? Because any al Qaeda leader worth his chops went there to fight, and in doing so gave us the opportunity to kill him. This we've done with considerable effect. As such, the most important of al Qaeda's next generation of leaders is now lying under the sands of Arabia rotting instead of carrying out lethal operations against us.

Can you possibly imagine the effect on our nation if al Qaeda were to come into the possession of an atomic bomb and then detonate it, say, in Chicago? Do you think your civil liberties, your affluence, or your sense of safety and security would remain intact? I think Pogo had it right when he described you as burying your face in your pillow and chanting it can't happen here, it can't happen here, it can't happen here.

Only fools cannot see the threat that Islamic fascism poses to the west. Your postings in this thread leave little doubt that among this group of fools you're a member in very good standing indeed.

Mr. Grumpy said...

Sure Pogo. Sure Gedaliya. Your Chicken Little routine is so damn convincing.

You go right ahead and stock up on duct tape. Check under your bed for Islamo-fascists. Shop until you drop to help support our troops! I'm not trying to deny you your little world of fear.

I'll stick with reality, thank you. There is no Islamo-fascist enemy that can "force an Islamic caliphate on the West." There exists no Islamo-fascist capability to make us to "live under their military-religious authority." That's Pogo's imaginary enemy; there's nothing like that in the real world.

You can go back to your color-coded life of being afraid now. Sorry for injecting a dose of reality into your fantasy world.

Gedaliya said...

I'll stick with reality, thank you.

Reality? Heh. I think you mean the classic "head-in-the-sand" mentality. Every time I think of Pogo's vision of your "it can't happen here" mantra I imagine you in the classic Muslim posture...this time with your face in a pillow with your ass in the air. Maybe you want them to win.

Who here will take odds that this goofball thinks "global warming" is a greater threat to the United States than al Qaeda?

Oh and by the way....didn't you say you were going to leave here if Ann didn't retract her dis-invitation to Madision Man? What happened? Did you change your mind?

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

"Can you possibly imagine the effect on our nation if al Qaeda were to come into the possession of an atomic bomb and then detonate it, say, in Chicago? Do you think your civil liberties, your affluence, or your sense of safety and security would remain intact?"

gedaliya, thanks for cutting through to the heart of the matter. While the grumpster is busy setting up his occupation straw man, Islamo-Fascists search for ways to destroy western culture and economies. This is an outcome the terrorists would gladly accept. Sounds like grumpy would too.

hdhouse said...

ohoh Pogo....Nonie Darwish .... you scamp you. Arabs for Israel.

Are Jews for Jesus your next source?

Already happening on the campus....ohmygod. how old are you son?