Monday, 25 Sep 2006
By Morpheus
In English last week, we were discussing rhetoric, namely, how rhetoric can influence people through definitions. When it came to the subject of texts and how they can pose as sites of struggle (i.e. different groups fighting for their own definitions of a term), our professor brought up the term ‘Islamofascism’ and how President Bush has come under fire for that term. Specifically, how some have criticized him (and rightly so, according to our prof) for applying such a negative term to “Islamic groups that are politically opposed to us.” (exact quote)
I’m sorry, but I don’t see how “political opposition” means “flying airplanes into buildings, beheading journalists, and blowing up buses” (to name but a few examples).
If we are going to win this war, we need to clearly define who the enemy is in a way that aptly describes him and his ways. The truth is that our enemy is a follower of radical Islam, and that he is also a proponent of radical Islamic fascism. I don’t think that we have to worry about offending mass murderers, but maybe that’s just me.
In order to effectively fight for our survival, we need to stop bending over backwards to kowtow to “sensitivity” and “political correctness,” because eventually our backs will break.
September 26th, 2006 at 6:58 am
Frankly, I couldn’t be more thrilled at the step President Bush has taken in naming the enemy. I was getting sick of hearing about the “war on terror”. There is no such thing, because terror is a tactic, not an enemy. In fact, I would go so far as to say that we are fighting a war against true Islam. The truth is that the terrorist are the good Muslims, whereas ‘moderates’ are not truly following their religion. Call it a Crusade. Woah, we’re way beyond the politically correct pale now!
September 26th, 2006 at 7:00 am
Luke, it is fantastic indeed that the enemy is being called by his true name. I don’t know if I’d go as far as you, though.
September 26th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Want to know who the real terrorists are? Want to know what the real threat to this country is? The ACLU and the homosexual activists. If they manage to remove God from the fabric of this country, and if they manage to destroy marriage as we know it, those two things will flush this country down the toilet. We can withstand any threat, any disaster, provided the majority of us remain a moral, godly family-oriented people. But without God, without morals and without the backbone of the traditional family, we will be lost.
Of course we must fight against the threat of Islamofacism, but we must not lose sight of what we need to do in this country to keep it strong. We cannot allow, for instance, public schools to teach our children—KINDERGARTEN children, mind you—-and on up through 6th grade and higher—that homosexuality is a normal, healthful “lifestyle.” We ESPECIALLY cannot allow schools to teach our children such stuff WITHOUT parental notification, and even AGAINST the WILL of parents.
Yes, it is the terrorism within this country, being perpetrated by so-called Americans, that is as real and as terrible as any threat from outside the U.S.
September 26th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
Slatherwater, thanks for the tangent.
While I agree with you that a society without God, morals, and the traditional family is doomed to fail, labeling the ACLU and “homosexual activists” as terrorists is very, very extreme (and only serves to further the misperception that Christians are heartless name-calling bigots). Comments like that only serve to vilify very real human beings who are in as much need of grace and salvation as you or I. Lost? Yes. Misguided? Very much. But /terrorists/? Please, spare the ad hominem attack.
And this post was written to state my opinion of political correctness and how it clouds our vision of al-Qaeda. If I really wanted to address my concerns in regards to the status of the traditional family, the ACLU, and morals, I would have written a post explicating just that (which I have, on my own blog). For heaven’s sake, if you don’t have anything to say that is immediately relevant and pertinent to the topic at hand, then don’t say anything. Please.
September 26th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
Seemingly off-topic comments are sometimes insightful. Also, common courtesy is desired in all comments.
October 16th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
I both agree and disagree with morpheus on the issue of Islamofacism. First of all “Islamofacism” probably isn’t the best term to be using since semantically it doesn’t make sense; facism is/was a statist ideology and therefore can’t be practiced by Islamic terrorists since they don’t represent any governmental entity and because the majority of them believe in the supremacy of Islam over the state system. This doesn’t however, mean that President Bush should be criticized for using the word. Moreover I think his attempt to be less ambiguous about the definition of Islamic terrorists is in fact more politically correct. He is attempting to identify the muslims who participate in horrendously violent deeds as being fundementally different from the majority of the world’s muslim population. Maybe the term “Islamofacism” should be abandoned for more appropriate polticaly jargon, but Bush should be praised not criticized for his effort to define Islamic terrorists as being ideologically apart.
October 17th, 2006 at 6:41 pm
The terrorists aren’t ideologically seperate from other Muslims, they are just carrying true Muslim doctrine into practice. Howevery, your distinction between fascism and the current threat is a great one.
October 20th, 2006 at 12:24 am
“Islamofascist” is an inappropriate for two reasons:
1) The terrorists’ political beliefs are much closer to communism than fascism. Though they are both authoritarian, fascism is characterized by nationalism and corporatism, while communism and the politics of Al Qaeda are marked by collectivism and centralized control.
2) the “Islamo-” prefix tends to paint with an overly broad brush. This implies that the terrorists are somehow uniquely linked to Islam and thereby makes all Islam the enemy. That makes it offensive to the vast majority of Muslims, who are, by and large, peaceful people. Put yourself in their shoes. How would you feel if Arian supremicists were called Christofascists? Would you be offended?
April 6th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
This is a fine example of empty rhetoric, almost nothing but value laden terms.
As for Luke’s “true Muslims are terrorists” propoisition, that is true of all the Abrahamic Religions. Christianity would be just like fundamentalist Islam had it not been for liberalizing forces in the post-medieval era.
April 14th, 2007 at 2:56 am
well, Slatherwater, iono about my sources, but i was taught that ACLU was the first organization that effectively grant Americans the right to have freedom of speech. they defended any group who was trying to voice their opinions, even if its a minority or majority. Sounds Familiar? isnt this website made for that same reason? haha
so maybe u got some other infos, but my Hist. teacher told us that ACLU defended blacks, whites, KKK, Civil rights, Unions, whoever they felt was censored.(though i they in the past the excluded Socialists)
…
..
..
(spacing to a different issue)
to Luke Landtroop
And, why would terrorist be TRUE Muslims? does that make Orthodox Christianity, TRUE Christianity? i dont quite understand where u stand on this here, are u a liberal type of person? or conservative?
or maybe u were trying to be funny? hahaha.
So what IS true Islam, and what IS true Christianity?
u mean everything taken literally from the Books, right? like people saying “its Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” that’d be True Christians then. And “thou shall not suffer a witch to live”….
hmmm
i await for a reply =)