Happy Fascism Awareness Week!

I’ve never been able to explain Halloween to the kids, with its odd thematic confluence of pumpkins, candy, and death. But Halloween is a piece of pumpkin cake compared to Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, which commences today. In this special week, organized by conservative pundit David Horowitz, we have a veritable witches’ brew of Cheney-style anti-jihadism mixed in with old-fashioned rightwing anti-feminism and a sour dash of anti-Semitism.

A major purpose of this week is to wake up academic women to the threat posed by militant jihadism. According to the Week’s website, feminists, and particularly the women’s studies professors among them, have developed a masochistic fondness for Islamic fundamentalist. Hence, as anti-Islamo-Fascist speakers fan out to the nation’s campuses this week, students are urged to stage “sit-ins in Women’s Studies Departments and campus Women’s Centers to protest their silence about the oppression of women in Islam.”

Leaving aside the obvious quibbles about feminist pro-jihadism and the term “Islamo-Fascism,” which seems largely designed to give jihadism a nice familiar World War II ring, the klaxons didn’t go off for me until I skimmed down the list of Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week speakers and found, incredibly enough, Ann Coulter, whom I last caught on TV pining for the repeal of women’s suffrage. "If we took away women's right to vote,” she said wistfully, “We’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream; it's a personal fantasy of mine."

Coulter is not the only speaker on the list who may have a credibility problem when it comes to opposing oppression of women in Islam or anywhere else. Another participant in the week’s events is former senator Rick Santorum, whose book It Takes a Family blamed “radical feminism” for pushing women into the workforce and thus destroying the American family. A 2005 column on that book in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, began with: “Women of America, I hope you look good in a burqa. If Senator Rick Santorum,R-PA, has his way, we will all be wearing the burqas discarded by our recently liberated sisters in Afghanistan…” (This was the before the Taliban re-emerged.)

Not quite in the burqa-promoting league, but close, is another official speaker for the week, Christina Hoff Sommers, who has made her name attacking feminism for exaggerating the problem of domestic violence and eliminating opportunities for boys. These are the people who are going to save us from purdah?

Another disagreeable feature of jihadism – anti-Semitism – is also represented on the list of speakers for Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week, again by the multi-faceted Coulter. Just last week on CNBC, she referred to America as a “Christian nation.” Asked where this left the Jews (not to mention the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans and atheists), she said they could be “perfected” by converting to Christianity.

You might imagine that this view of Jews as “imperfect” would bother  Horowitz, who is famously alert to any hint of anti-Semitism on the left. But no, he defends Coulter, writing that "If you don't accompany this belief by burning Jews who refuse to become perfected at the stake why would any Jew have a problem?" Sure, David, and if that’s the threshold for intolerance, Osama bin Laden could probably win an award for humanitarianism.

Maybe none of this should be surprising. When Mel Gibson, who is not known to be a member of the Hollywood left, unleashed a drunken anti-Semitic tirade on his arresting officers, Horowitz also rose to his defense, arguing that ensuing outrage reflected a “hatred” – not of anti-Semites -- but of Christians.

As for the anti-feminism of Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week: This fits in neatly with the thesis of Susan Faludi’s brilliant new book, The Terror Dream: Fear and Fantasy in Post-9/11 America. She shows that, in the wake of an attack by the ultra-misogynist Al Qaeda, Americans perversely engaged in an anti-feminist campaign of their own, calling for an immediate restoration of traditional gender roles. Coulter was part of that backlash, opining in 2002 that “feminists hate guns because guns remind them of men.”

Before you put on your costumes to celebrate Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week, let me set the record straight. American feminists do not condone, defend, or ignore jihadist misogyny. In fact, we were warning about it well before Washington turned against the Taliban and have been consistently appalled by the gender dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Iran.

But if the facts don’t fit in with Islamo-Fascist Awareness, they have to go. For example, in a May ‘07 column in The Weekly Standard Christina Hoff Sommers  listed me as one of the “feckless” feminists who refuse “to pass judgment on non-Western cultures.” What? If Sommers had even done ten minutes of research she would have noticed, among other things, a column I wrote in the New York Times in ’04 stating that Islamic fundamentalism aims to push one-half of the Muslim world—the female half-- “down to a status only slightly above that of domestic animals.”

Yes, feminists tend to hate war and sometimes even guns, and this may be why Horowitz and company hate us. They should know, though, that we especially hate a war that seems calculated to inflame Islamic fundamentalism world wide. If many Muslim women around the world willingly don head scarves today, it’s in part because our war in Iraq has, tragically, pushed them to value religious solidarity above their feminist instincts.

Or maybe I’m missing the point of Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week. Maybe it’s really an effort to show that our own American anti-feminists (and anti-Semites) are just as nasty as the ones on the other side. If so, good job, guys! No need to continue with the trick-or-treating, you’ve already made your point.

Comments

[buena]

Barbara, I'd pay good money to see a debate between you and Ann Coulter. Is she taking some of Limbaugh's drugs or is she just crazy?

The idea that feminists and Women's Studies professors have a fondness for Islamic fundamentalism is beyond insane.

Maybe because feminists tend to be against The Twit's illegal war, the inference is that we condone Islamic fundamentalism. That's such a stretch I doubt even a crazy person would believe it.

[Anarcissie]

David Horowitz is a True Believer, and for a True Believer all who do not fully subscribe to the True Faith are on the Devil's side, regardless of their apparent differences.

[roger]

instead of questioning the integrity of those who are sponsoring this event perhaps we should ask ourselves whether awareness and caution is justified.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/101907dnintpakistan.183399ef0.html

"Various reports said up to 126 were killed and about 248 wounded, including civilians and party workers."

this occurred last thursday in an attempt to assasinate Benazir Bhutto. it is widely believed that this is the work of al qaeda.

[buena]

You seem to have absolutely, totally, and completely missed the point, roger.

The point is, feminists are being accused of supporting or condoning Islamic fundamentalists, i.e. terrorists. How ridiculous is that?

[Becky]

Holy crap. You're kidding, right? Right?

[Lulu Maude]

Gee. From the title I was thinking you were going to warn us about our own creeping fascism... about Coulter, Cheney, Horowitz, et al.

Aren't the parallels something?!?

[BobS.]

Ironically,it seems to be our native 'Judeo-Christian fascists' who feel most threatened by Islamic fundamentalism.I guess they just want the stage for themselves.

[Larry In Lethbridge]

An absolutely airtight argument Barbara.

Ann Coulter makes me nauseous. Glad I don't have to see her that often.

[svetr]

buena: an aside, but i don't think its fair to equate islamic fundamentalists with terrorists. one can be fundamentalist and yet not support terror.

[buena]

You're right, svetr. I meant to imply that they are generally seen that way in this country.

[wow power leveling]

wow gold
wow gold
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
World Of Warcraft power leveling
World Of Warcraft power leveling
World Of Warcraft power leveling
World Of Warcraft powerleveling
World Of Warcraft powerleveling
World Of Warcraft powerleveling
wow power level
wow power level
wow power level
cheap wow power leveling
cheap wow power leveling
cheap wow powerleveling
cheap wow powerleveling
codeheart article
Warcraft Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
cheap wow gold

[Monica]

Has it ever occurred to you that some of the women who willingly don scarves are just rejecting feminism and may in fact be attracted to Islam precisely because that's the only serious alternative to this world of greed, immorality, work slavery for both genders and feminism? That's exactly how I feel. I would love to wear a burka, which I don't because it is considered odd here (I'm in Canada), and I kind of like Osama. Mind you, he offered some opportunity for reconciliation (converting to Islam), whereas the West has nothing better to offer than war and their corruption. If some Muslims are doing anything bad, that does not mean that Islam as a whole is bad and that their interpretation of Islamic values is right.

In Islam, male family members are supposed to support not only their wife, but also their unmarried, divorced or widowed female relatives. How many American women can convince their brother, for example, that he must support them? They are lucky if he just helps them out a little, and he would see it as a temporary favour he is doing out of the kindness of his heart, not as a duty. So far for having a more dignified status than the Muslim women who are entitled to their relatives' support. American women are treated like beasts of burden because they must work, yet they feel that Muslim women are themselves treated like animals.

Feminism burdened women with new obligations, such as having to work, and contributed to the erosion of family values. They are the reason so many "liberated" women are wasting away their lives at work instead of staying home. I have made a conscious decision to reject their ideology, and I wish I could send them back to the kitchen, and stay there myself.

[Anarcissie]

Good ol' Monica. You should move to New York City, where you will be allowed to devote yourself to any form of sartorial slavery you like in perfect freedom. Where I live (Queens) you can see burqas every day (mostly on Bangladeshis).

[gabriel christou]

please visit
www.gabrielchristou.blogspot.com

you will see PHOTOS of WHO and WHERE Bin Laden and his NETWORKS ARE….

URGENT…PLEASE HELP…. I CANNOT FROM HERE….. I AM BLOCKED ALL AROUND
FORWARD THIS INFORMATION TO THE FBI.

[email protected]

[roger]

barbara: Hence, as anti-Islamo-Fascist speakers fan out to the nation’s campuses this week, students are urged to stage “sit-ins in Women’s Studies Departments and campus Women’s Centers to protest their silence about the oppression of women in Islam.

buena: You seem to have absolutely, totally, and completely missed the point, roger.

The point is, feminists are being accused of supporting or condoning Islamic fundamentalists, i.e. terrorists. How ridiculous is that?

the womens studies departments are being protested because of the belief that they are not sufficiently vocal about subordination of women within islam. the womens studies departments are not being accused of supporting islamic fundamentalists. is this distinction too nuanced for you or do you find you need to exaggerate the opposite point of view in order to promote your own.

[roger]

so the actual question is whether the academic left in general and womens studies departments in particular have been negligent in voicing concern over violence toward those who highlight subjugation of women within islam.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/11/24/vangogh/

[roger]

again should the universities have been more diligent in accentuating the threat.

http://www.thefileroom.org/documents/dyn/DisplayCase.cfm/id/1069

[buena]

Barbara says, "American feminists do not condone, defend, or ignore jihadist misogyny. In fact, we were warning about it well before Washington turned against the Taliban and have been consistently appalled by the gender dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Iran."

The U.S. administration has never been concerned about how other countries treat women, or donkeys.

[paperpusher666]

I can understand the desire for a woman to assume a more traditional role in return for economic security. My parents were able to raise a family comfortably on a single income, but that doesn't seem to have been possible for anyone who married within the last 30 years. If you price it out, a lot of the time it isn't worthwhile for a married mother to work because her salary barely offsets the cost of day care and other work-related costs (i.e. second car, wardrobe, etc.).

The shotgun marriage is dead. No-fault divorce has taken away many of the incentives for couples to try to work things out, so people move on.

[JoshuasGrandma]

Fascists and fundamentalists are alike whether they be Islamic or Christian. Each desires total control, to use law to impose their views on everyone else. They use the same tactics: labels and threats, intolerance, propaganda and violence to intimidate and inspire fear. They espouse traditional family with dominant male, ownership and subjugation of women. The Christian Right's focus on Islamo-fascists is yet another effort to divert public attention from our own homegrown variety.

[roger]

i gather you would equate the role of the father in western tradition be it christian or otherwise with the subjugation of women in asia and within the islamic tradition. i guess i missed the part about western tradition of owning women and arranged marriages and female circumcision. with the exception of polygamous marriages by fringe groups in the west i would have a hard time drawing the equation.

you would have to demonstrate the christian equivalent of the commission for the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice for the arguement to hold.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1874471.stm

the nearest thing we have to this atrocity is civil rights violations including emmett till but then that was not driven by patriarchy but rather racism. even those eligible for capital punishment are not executed by fire.

[Chickensh*teagle]

roger: "i guess i missed the part about western tradition of owning women and arranged marriages and female circumcision."

"Not as bad as" isn't the same as "good" or even "acceptable."

"the womens studies departments are being protested because of the belief that they are not sufficiently vocal about subordination of women within islam."

So the neocon warmongers would like the women's studies departments to help them do their work of demonizing Islam so as to goose along this "clash of civilizations" they're spoiling for. Not to mention devoting less effort to opposing the right's agenda of rolling back women's gains of recent decades here in this country.

Sorry, but it's not the place of Horowitz and friends to give the women's studies departments their marching orders.

[Chris]

Barbara, I think you are missing an important point. Full disclosure, I didn't see it until I read Susan Faldui's new book.

The conversation about feminism and islamo-facism is not really about women's rights in Islam or feminism- it's about American machismo. The Afgan, Saudi, Iranian, and Iraqi persecution is only relevant because it is up to us, the mighty and indestrucable American Alpha Male, to "save" them. That is why now, after the Afganistan war is 'won," the self-appointted defenders of islamic women's rights are silent about Malalai Joya's eviction from the Afgan Parliament, who is an actual activist for women's rights in the Islamic world.

For the wingunts, Women's slavation does not lie in their own real agency, it's in our policy of bombing other countries until their women are so grateful they swoon in our muscular arms.

[roger]

"So the neocon warmongers would like the women's studies departments to help them do their work of demonizing Islam so as to goose along this "clash of civilizations" they're spoiling for."

so you buy into the no blood for oil mantra. if oil is the point it would have been much simpler to have lifted the sanctions and purchased the oil.

[Chris S.]

PC requires blindness. Feminist are loathe to criticize non-Christian people of color. Oh how they wish it was American white males forcing women to wear burquas, beating their wives and doing honor killings. It's so damned inconvenient when the enemy is not supposed to be a rainbow hued ally.

[Chickensh*tEagle]

roger:

The Middle East war comes to us courtesy of many overlapping and sometimes competing agendas. One is the U.S. desire for permanent military bases hosted by a docile client regime in Iraq. To the extent that it's about oil, though, which is mostly, it's not just about being able to buy oil but to control who gets to buy it and sell it and at what price.

That's the deal with the "revenue sharing law" that the U.S. has tried as yet unsuccessfully to ram through the Iraqi parliament; the multinational oil companies would get to run things and collect the lion's share of the revenues, while keeping world prices high, which gives them their biggest profits.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ26Ak01.html

To most ordinary people, though, that's a harder sell for an endless, bloody war than a "global war on terror" against "Islamo-Fascists" who will rape your daughters and force you to eat pita bread and hummus. (Ever notice how "hummus" resonates with "Hamas"?)

Yes, we have a problem with terrorism, which we've largely brought on ourselves by arrogantly trying to run the world through activities mostly kept secret from the American public.

To some of the neocons, "Islamo-Fascism" is their main focus and whatever reasons anyone else might have for the war are fine with them. But you're a sucker if you believe that, to the most powerful players, it's not mainly about oil.

[Anarcissie]

I don't think there's any conflict or discrepancy between the theory that the US must exert imperial power to bring correct politics, culture, and social order to Iraq, and the theory that the US must exert imperial power to control Iraq's oil, especially their reserves. The difference is only one of emphasis or viewing angle; the principle is the same.

The business about Women's Studies departments not denouncing radical Muslims vigorously or often enough is one of the older and dumber political moves around -- the "insufficient denunciation" charge. It's not surprising to find Horowitz practicing it, but I don't know why anyone with a modicum of intelligence should take him seriously. There is some humor in it, but it is a low sort of humor.

[Chickensh*tEagle]

Anarcissie: "The difference is only one of emphasis or viewing angle; the principle is the same."

You're right, of course, but that can still lead to "sometimes competing agendas" as I put it. What I was thinking of, bearing in mind the neocons' Israel-based viewing angle, was the plan some of them reportedly had to dump Iraqi oil on the world market, depressing prices and thereby kicking the Saudis' legs out from under them. If true, that would have run counter to the oil companies' desire to keep prices high.

It looks the oil companies' agenda won out -- at least, Iraq's production is in the toilet! -- but that doesn't make the neocon maniacs any less eager to keep the war going and expand it against Iran. So the Oilocaust denial and the Islamo-Fascist bashing aren't going to stop anytime soon.

[Jeff]

Thanks for the Ann Coulter quotes - I genuinely enjoy the debate she inspires by the anger she provokes!

[chris]

chickenshit eagle, you wrote:

"What I was thinking of, bearing in mind the neocons' Israel-based viewing angle, was the plan some of them reportedly had to dump Iraqi oil on the world market, depressing prices and thereby kicking the Saudis' legs out from under them."

The preceding nonsense represents thoughts that can only arise in the minds of those who know nothing about the realities of the oil market. Sean Penn and George Clooney might create an entertaining movie around this notion, but stuff like this does not drive the oil industry.

You wrote:

"If true, that would have run counter to the oil companies' desire to keep prices high."

Oil company profits are going to drop, or at least show no increase for a while, despite higher prices at the well-head.

The price of gasoline has not risen in tandem with oil prices in recent months. Therefore, profit margins will shrink.

You wrote:

"It looks the oil companies' agenda won out -- at least, Iraq's production is in the toilet!"

Iraqi oil production had dropped from 4 million barrels a day to about 2 million barrels a day toward the end of Saddam's regime. He, like most oil tyrants, didn't believe in investing in the maintenance and repair of his oil infrastructure. It was falling apart for years.

The former Soviet Union made the same mistake. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia understands the benefits of investing in its golden goose. But, as with all aspects of the middle east oil industry, it takes non-muslims to handle the important work. Thus, all the oilfield services work must be handled by non-domestic experts.

You wrote:

"...but that doesn't make the neocon maniacs any less eager to keep the war going and expand it against Iran."

If various bands of muslim idiots were not obstructing the upgrading of the Iraqi oilfield infrastructure, vastly more cash would flow into Iraq. That's the plan. A prospering Iraq yields a richer world.

The same holds for Iran. The sooner these screwball governments are ousted and people with some appreciation for democracy and capitalism take the controls, the sooner these countries will emerge from their millennium-long slumber.

You wrote:

"So the Oilocaust denial and the Islamo-Fascist bashing aren't going to stop anytime soon."

Iraq could easily produce 6 million barrels of oil a day if the idiot muslim self-defeatists would step back.

Iraq is producing less than 2 million barrels a day now. At $90 a barrel that's $180 million a day. Of course, the real figure is lower. But selling 6 million a day, at $60 a barrel is $360 million a day. In other words, Iraq would have no trouble DOUBLING its daily oil revenue. Thus, Iraq and the world would benefit simultaneously.

The problem lies with the idiot muslims who want more misery and less peace and prosperity.

[Monica]

As if invading their country created more peace and prosperity. As for being idiots, that's a value judgment. They may think that Americans are idiots, especially with such a president. It's up to them to be smart or idiots and do whatever they want in their own country, and the Americans should have no business there.

[Anarcissie]

The neo-cons do not strike me as having any sort of practical agenda, or actually, as being in touch with anything I can recognize as reality.

However, I think the more rational sectors of the ruling class may apprehend that there is getting to be a money problem. The value of money lies in its ability to command power, that is, make people do things. But so much money has been created that it is possible that there is no way of summoning enough labor to make it good. However, in order to keep the economy going, governments are creating more and more of it. Rising oil prices contribute to this imbalance. Eventually, there will be a severe day of reckoning, which I think the r.c. would just as soon put off as long as possible. Therefore, I think they would prefer lower oil prices; but this they cannot have, because of rising oil consumption everywhere and the US debacle in the Middle East.

[Chickensh*tEagle]

"But, as with all aspects of the middle east oil industry, it takes non-muslims to handle the important work."

Well then, Iraq clearly needs a good oil minister and, just offhand, "chris" doesn't sound like a Muslim name. So go for it! :-)

[Larry In Lethbridge]

I doubt very much if Chris could work in a foreign country, especially a Muslim nation. First he wouldn't be able to get his favourite American foods easily and secondly he couldn't work amongst Muslims as he is a racist bigot who doesn't really like Muslims.

Lastly, he could not function as a foreign oil minister as you need relevant experience, not textbook know how. He does talk a good argument though.

[roger]

this is the rising generation. this is berkeley:

http://www.zombietime.com/darwish_berkeley/

i was under the impression that there would be a fair and becoming exchange of ideas on one of americas great campuses.

[roger]

there are mulitiple problems to comprehending what is actually happening in the middle east. there is propaganda and misinformation from all sides. there is attempts to stifle information from apparently credible sources. politics smother the entire discussion. i keep returning to the unanswered question: was the invasion of iraq a measured and appropriate response to the terrorist attacks in new york, washington and pennsylvania in 2001.

[Chickensh*tEagle]

"was the invasion of iraq a measured and appropriate response to the terrorist attacks in new york, washington and pennsylvania in 2001."

Apart from the detail that al-Qaida didn't attack Pennsylvania; that just happened to be where the plane's passengers brought it down in an open field -- the answer is, only if you consider it appropriate to attack a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on you. And considering that 3,000 or so people were killed in the 9/11 attacks while perhaps as many as a million Iraqis have died as the result of our war against them -- with 4 million displaced internally and externally -- I'd say the "measuring" kinda sucked, too.

Here's some more Islamo-Fascist awareness" for you:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/opinion/29krugman.html?hp

[roger]

no pennsylvania was not the target. apparently the white house was the target.

you realize that krugman is a hack right?

[roger]

krugman: In the wake of 9/11, the Bush administration adopted fear-mongering as a political strategy. Instead of treating the attack as what it was — an atrocity committed by a fundamentally weak, though ruthless adversary — the administration portrayed America as a nation under threat from every direction.

the question is whether america is under attack. additionally did the administration manufacture the threat. aside from obvious violence (see theo van gogh) we would do well to ask if any plots have been averted/prevented:

http://house-of-bob.blogspot.com/2007/06/bushco-sponsored-globodoom.html

i cannot speak for the accuracy of the above quoted blog. the events listed however have all occured since sept 11, 2001.

[Chickensh*tEagle]

"you realize that krugman is a hack right?"

No, I don't. Define hack and tell me why Krugman fits that definition.

[Andrea]

Islamic Fundamentalism is the US's Frankenstein's Monster. The US created the environment for it to grow and appeal to a generation of young men who felt disenfranchised by a government imposed on them by outside forces. I am sure I will be vehemently and rudely disagreed with on that statement, but a look through the policies and events of the Eisenhower administration will vindicate me.

Thing is, these disenfranchised young men came with an interpretation of Islamic law that doesn't quite match the traditional interpretations; these actually grant women MORE rights within the family, marriage and society than their Christian or Jewish sisters enjoy. Under those interpretations, a woman who covers her beauties is showing that she has more respect for herself and her family than a woman who does not.

Sadly, this doctrine has been twisted into a harmful relegation of women to an inferior status. And we women who have known about its various injustices for decades and spoke out about them are wondering where the rest of you all have been for all these years.

But in any extremist construct, it seems like the first thing The Powers That Be try to do is cover up and silence the women. It seems that Ann Coulter follows along with that lock-step. Silence the women, so then we won't have to countenance a difference of opinion.

Like all extremists, the "Islamo-Fascists" and the current conservatives imagine a perfect world where first everyone is made to think as they do. It's a terrible position to take. They will suddenly find out that they don't know everything and can't anticipate the problems that arise from that. Then they'll watch as it all comes crumbling down around them.

I could, of course, be wrong about all that.

[roger]

there is simply no commensurate nor symmetrical comparison between strict and uncomproming sharia as practiced in saudi arabia and western culture as practiced in the united states and europe. if you dont believe me read "infidel" by ayaan hirsi ali. this is a dry and analytical conclusion. it is not a product of racist thought. the doctrine of submission required of women as taught and practiced by sharia is simply not found in the west.

http://books.google.com/books?id=70vIJVnOOpIC&pg=PP1&dq=infidel&sig=7k1eLy-FbhU3wX1xiBwtX3SGYCU#PPP1,M1

her account of her own circumcision committed upon her without anesthesia on the floor of her apartment shortly after entering puberty is particularly horrifying.

[Anarcissie]

roger: '... i keep returning to the unanswered question: was the invasion of iraq a measured and appropriate response to the terrorist attacks in new york, washington and pennsylvania in 2001.'

Appropriate for what? Bush, Cheney and company wanted to expand American imperialism, so it was a good response in the sense of advancing that particular piece of business. The big problem with using America as an imperial base is that Americans by and large aren't very warlike or imperial, so the leadership must take every opportunity provided and exploit it to the fullest in order to achieve their goals. 9/11 provided an opportunity and it was indeed exploited to the fullest -- but the gas seems to have run out now, so one hears drum-beating for a new, different war.

[chris]

chickeshit eagle, Krugman is a hack. In fact, he's far worse.

He wrote the following and I interjected a few thoughts:

Fearing Fear Itself
By Paul Krugman
The New York Times
Monday 29 October 2007

He says:

"Today, many of the men who hope to be the next president - including all of the candidates with a significant chance of receiving the Republican nomination - have made unreasoning, unjustified terror the centerpiece of their campaigns..."

and
"Consider, for a moment, the implications of the fact that Rudy Giuliani is taking foreign policy advice from Norman Podhoretz, who wants us to start bombing Iran "as soon as it is logistically possible.""

and

"Mr. Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary and a founding neoconservative, tells us that Iran is the "main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11." The Islamofascists, he tells us, are well on their way toward creating a world "shaped by their will and tailored to their wishes." Indeed, "Already, some observers are warning that by the end of the 21st century the whole of Europe will be transformed into a place to which they give the name Eurabia.""

and

"Do I have to point out that none of this makes a bit of sense?"

Apparently Krugman has forgotten that muslims now account for a sizable and rapidly growing segment of the European population. Just as the black and latino populations have grown and gained political influence in the US, so shall the muslim populations of Europe. In fact, they have already, as the delicate tip-toeing around those groups by European politicians shows.

He says:

"For one thing, there isn't actually any such thing as Islamofascism - it's not an ideology; it's a figment of the neocon imagination."

Islamofascism may not be an ideology per se, but the term nails the character of the clowns who live it. They are islamic and their methods are lower-case fascistic. They are not Fascists. They are fascistic. However, as always, Krugman avoids the facts and reality with a little dubious word-play.

He says:

"The term came into vogue only because it was a way for Iraq hawks to gloss over the awkward transition from pursuing Osama bin Laden, who attacked America, to Saddam Hussein, who didn't."

Islamofascism accurately depicts the thinking of the muslims who have declared their intent to create the global caliphate. The fact that their goal is beyond their reach does not deter them. The islamic religion is gaining new adherents at pace the other major religions envy.

He says:

"And Iran had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 - in fact, the Iranian regime was quite helpful to the United States when it went after Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies in Afghanistan."

Iran is on the path to obtaining nuclear weapons. That's got to stop. It doesn't matter if the country also helped a few old ladies across busy streets, its goal is to have a weapon with which to threaten the US by way of threatening the middle east.

He says:

"Beyond that, the claim that Iran is on the path to global domination is beyond ludicrous."

More Krugman word play. Global domination? No. But when you have nuclear weapons, you have international power beyond the wildest imaginings of most dictators. The US and all other leading nations will stand by when dictators emerge and subjugate entire populations. But the US has stated to the world that it will stick its nose into the affairs of nations that seek or obtain nuclear weapons. Thus, Iran's efforts in that direction are undertaken knowing what their goal entails. Yet the Iranian government plans to go ahead with the effort. That's a direct challenge to the US.

Meanwhile, the drive for nuclear weapons shows the insanity of the Iranian regime. The experience of Iraq should inform the leadership that Iran can choose a similar outcome. Saddam Hussein could have surrendered at any point, even after the invasion of Iraq had begun. If he had, he'd still be alive and Iraq might well be on a different path. But he didn't. Iran would experience the same military humiliation and a complete shake-up of the country would follow.

Defiance seems to be a common muslim shortcoming. Standing up to vastly superior powers seems to satisfy some inner foolishness of muslims. But it never really satisfies because the outcome always involves muslim humiliation.

He says:

"Yes, the Iranian regime is a nasty piece of work in many ways, and it would be a bad thing if that regime acquired nuclear weapons. But let's have some perspective, please: we're talking about a country with roughly the G.D.P. of Connecticut, and a government whose military budget is roughly the same as Sweden's."

The preceding paragraph is probably the most offensive. If muslim terrorists have proven anything, they have proven they don't need big military budgets to go about their business. September 11 is all the proof you need. They converted large passenger aircraft into flying bombs and inflicted direct economic damage of at least $100 billion with an investment of less than $500K. Half the cost of one US cruise missile.

If suicide bombings occur in the US, the NY subway system is a likely target. What is the cost of the necessary equipment? Very little. The amounts are well within the budgets of muslim terrorist groups. The results would guarantee a huge return on that investment. Meanwhile, it's obvious the Iranian leadership has high hopes for detonating a nuclear weapon in Israel. The leaders have already stated their willingness to endure the casualties resulting from a counter-attack. This is yet another example of the muslim madness that I like to call Pyrrhic Defeat.

He says:

"Meanwhile, the idea that bombing will bring the Iranian regime to its knees - and bombing is the only option, since we've run out of troops - is pure wishful thinking."

Krugman is an idiot. About an hour's worth of attacks would decapitate the country.

He says:

"Last year Israel tried to cripple Hezbollah with an air campaign, and ended up strengthening it instead. There's every reason to believe that an attack on Iran would produce the same result, with the added effects of endangering U.S. forces in Iraq and driving oil prices well into triple digits."

Apparently Krugman is happy to overlook the fact that hezbollah is an Iranian-controlled organization, and that through hezbollah Iran controls Lebanon and has extensive influence in Syria. Moreover, Israel's counter-attack last year was insufficient. There's no doubt about that. But because Krugman is a deceiver, he wants readers to forget that the stated mission of hezbollah and hamas has always been the destruction of Israel and the disappearance of all Jews from the middle east. This ambition is not new. Furthermore, there's no room for this ambition to become more extreme. Destroy Israel and drive out or preferably kill all the Jews. That's always been the goal. But Krugman suggests that last year's Israeli counter-attack, the retaliatory attack on hezbollah made things worse. He's an idiot.

He says:

"Mr. Podhoretz, in short, is engaging in what my relatives call crazy talk. Yet he is being treated with respect by the front-runner for the G.O.P. nomination. And Mr. Podhoretz's rants are, if anything, saner than some of what we've been hearing from some of Mr. Giuliani's rivals."

and

"Thus, in a recent campaign ad Mitt Romney asserted that America is in a struggle with people who aim "to unite the world under a single jihadist Caliphate. To do that they must collapse freedom-loving nations. Like us." He doesn't say exactly who these jihadists are, but presumably he's referring to Al Qaeda - an organization that has certainly demonstrated its willingness and ability to kill innocent people, but has no chance of collapsing the United States, let alone taking over the world."

The muslim terrorists cannot take over the world. Why? Because we won't let them. But Krugman suggests that the whole muslim terrorism business will fall apart on its own and that this understanding of ultimate failure is the deterrent that will keep them from trying. He's saying we can do nothing and all will be well. He's an idiot. The price-tag for 9/11 demonstrates that it wouldn't take many large-scale events to seriously damage the US. Meanwhile, the threat of more terrorism is a component of high oil prices, which strain every economy in the world. Thus, the jihadists -- those islamofascists -- could confine their attacks to middle east oilfields if their only aim was to inflict huge economic hardship on the US, the west, and every other energy-consuming nation. They've cleverly turned some of our own strengths against us.

He says:

"And Mike Huckabee, whom reporters like to portray as a nice, reasonable guy, says that if Hillary Clinton is elected, "I'm not sure we'll have the courage and the will and the resolve to fight the greatest threat this country's ever faced in Islamofascism." Yep, a bunch of lightly armed terrorists and a fourth-rate military power - which aren't even allies - pose a greater danger than Hitler's panzers or the Soviet nuclear arsenal ever did."

Here again Krugman displays his lunacy. He now pretends the only path to toppling nations is through direct military confrontation. I guess that means he believes al-qaeda IS a world-class fighting machine with over-powering weaponry. Otherwise, without that, how could al-qaeda have brought on the collapse of the Soviet Union through its defeat in Afghanistan?

He says:

"All of this would be funny if it weren't so serious."

I'm sure he's laughing into the sleeve of his strait-jacket.

He says:

"In the wake of 9/11, the Bush administration adopted fear-mongering as a political strategy. Instead of treating the attack as what it was - an atrocity committed by a fundamentally weak, though ruthless adversary - the administration portrayed America as a nation under threat from every direction."

In other words, he's stupidly comfortable with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons which it has promised to launch against Israel. If that were to happen, Israel would likely send its own bomb into Tehran. That would instantly bring Russia, Pakistan, China, India and the US into the conflict. Where that would lead is unknown. But the options are mostly grim.

He says:

"Most Americans have now regained their balance. But the Republican base, which lapped up the administration's rhetoric about the axis of evil and the war on terror, remains infected by the fear the Bushies stirred up - perhaps because fear of terrorists maps so easily into the base's older fears, including fear of dark-skinned people in general."

Krugman really needs to leave his ivory tower once in a while. Princeton isn't like the rest of the US.

He says:

"And the base is looking for a candidate who shares this fear."

Meanwhile, Democrats are crafting appeasement policies to offer dictators everywhere.

He says:

"Just to be clear, Al Qaeda is a real threat, and so is the Iranian nuclear program. But neither of these threats frightens me as much as fear itself - the unreasoning fear that has taken over one of America's two great political parties."

I didn't know there was enough sand in Princeton for Krugman to bury his head in. I guess there is.

[roger]

nefarious is the word that comes to mind if we are willing to accept that the administration used the terrorist attacks in 2001 as a ruse for this expanding imperialism. i dont know if this is the case. i would like to believe that this is not the case. the argument is similar to the argument that the administration imploded the towers and was party to the actions of the terrorists which i do not believe.

[Chickensh*tEagle]

roger: "...her account of her own circumcision committed upon her without anesthesia..."

roger, I daresay most readers of this site are already clued in well enough about female genital mutilation without your reminders.

To the extent that the American public is aware of FGM, it's more thanks to feminists advocating for women's rights than to conservatives, who generally don't concern themselves with it except when they need to point to something that treatment of women in the West isn't as bad as.

Again, women's studies departments don't need talking points, marching orders, suggested topics for dissertations, etc., etc., from Horowitz & Co. Let them grind their ax somewhere else.

"...the argument is similar to the argument that the administration imploded the towers and was party to the actions of the terrorists which i do not believe."

I don't believe it either. But as for "similarity," is it similar or not similar to seize upon the disaster as an excuse to launch a war which so far has killed more American soldiers than people whom the 9/11 attacks killed, not to mention perhaps a million other people who had nothing to do with 9/11?

[roger]

why this animosity toward the speakers last week organized by horowitz. apparently some voices are acceptable to be heard on college campuses and others are not. it was at berkeley that nonie darwish was shouted down. i have read her background. she seems credible to me. is it the fact that she has abandoned islam and criticizes moderate muslims for failing to speak out against extremists. i wonder how many students of the womans studies departments joined the berkeley college republicans in support of the speech by ms. darwish a week ago monday.

[chris]

It is no small irony that the "Free Speech" movement began at Berkeley led by Mario Savio in the early 1960s.

The recent problems faced by Nonie Darwish at Berkeley would give Mario Savio a migraine.

[roger]

i didnt know who mario savio was.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Savio

[Chickensh*tEagle]

"...apparently some voices are acceptable to be heard on college campuses and others are not."

How about that? It took a big public outcry to get an appearance by Desmond Tutu at University of St. Thomas reinstated after it was canceled because of complaints from some folks of Horowitz's persuasion.

I don't have a problem with Horowitz and friends speaking at any place that's willing to have them. It's simply not their business to tell others, like women's studies departments, where their duty lies.

[roger]

see this will be fun. this course is offered at berkeley by womens studies department:

SELECTED TOPICS IN FEMINIST THEORY
SEX CHANGE CITY: THEORIZING HISTORY IN GENDERQUEER SAN FRANCISCO
Gender and Women’s Studies 170
Instructor: Susan Stryker
Time/Location: M 2-5/155 Donner Lab
CCN: 32960
This course explores the history of gender diversity in San Francisco from the mid-19th-century through the present, and uses that history to launch theoretical and critical discussions of embodiment, identity, desire, space, event, and time. The course will examine such topics as: implications of U.S. imperialism and colonization for the construction of gender in 19th-century San Francisco’s multicultural, multiracial, and multiethnic milieu; the regulation of gender-variant practices in public space by San Francisco’s Anglo-European elites; circulation of gender-variant cultural knowledges and practices between elite, deviant, and marginal social groups; the emergence of scientific sexology and eugenics, and the proliferation of psychiatrized and pathologized identity categories for gender-variant people; the relationship between police regulation of “vice” subcultures and the historical geography of gender-
variant populations in the Tenderloin neighborhood; the emergence of transsexual discourses and embodiment practices in post-World War II San Francisco; the social history of transgender social change movements, beginning with the Compton’s Cafeteria Riot of 1966; the relationship between transgender and gay, lesbian, and bisexual communities; implications of the AIDS/HIV epidemic for transgender populations; and contemporary transgender, queer, genderqueer, and post-queer cultural production and politics. Students will be expected to write a research paper based on original historical research, and to contextualize their topic within a relevant critical debate.

a little something for everyone. and yes i picked the gayest thing i could find.

[Chickensh*tEagle]

So what's your point? That it sound like you could learn something from it, perhaps?

[roger]

sure.

perhaps womens studies can teach me something about american imperialism and colonization. of course we would have to wade through a lot of "gender-variant cultural knowledges and practices between elite, deviant, and marginal social groups". tell me that this is as intellectually rigorous as what nonie darwish presented amidst harassment and abuse.

[Anarcissie]

roger: '.... perhaps womens studies can teach me something about american imperialism and colonization. ...'

In the case above it would be only 19th-century imperialism and colonization, in other words, the Winning of the West. That _was_ sort of a White-Man thing, at least, the imperialists were whiter and manlier than many of their victims. In the 21st century, however, apparently anyone can aspire to lead the imperial order.

[chris]

roger,

As I gather you discovered, Mario Savio was a fascinating fellow and would have slammed his head on the wall if he were alive today to see what had happened at Berkeley.

I believe many of the students there today know nothing about him.

[Chickensh*tEagle]

roger: "...of course we would have to wade through a lot of 'gender-variant cultural knowledges and practices between elite, deviant, and marginal social groups'."

So they should just cut all that queer crap and do their patriotic part to whip up bellicose sentiment for an attack on Iran by concentrating on FGM in Muslim countries. True feminism is what we men tell them it is. Uh-huh.

"tell me that this is as intellectually rigorous as what nonie darwish presented amidst harassment and abuse."

I'd never heard of Nonie Darwish until now, so this is a first impression. The first thing that came up when I Googled her was this:

http://www.arabsforisrael.com/

"To Muslims and Arabs across the globe:

"Reject hate, embrace love. Bring out the best in Islam by showing your compassion, gratitude and forgiveness. Make the holy land truly holy by giving Israel and the Jewish people the respect they deserve in their tiny little country."

A big part of Muslims' gripe against Israel is that they don't think Israel (which is armed to the teeth, including nukes) gives Palestinians the respect they deserve in their own even tinier, even littler country. A big part of the Muslim gripe against the U.S. is its one-sided support of Israel, perceived or real. Darwish calls the conflict a crisis of the soul, not a crisis over land. But land is where you live, which Israel shows it believes by constanty nibbling away at Palestinian land.

I don't condone "harassment and abuse," if she was indeed subjected to it, but this airbrushing of "land" with "the soul" doesn't seem promising to me in the intellectual rigor department.

[chris]

chickenshit eagle, you wrote:

"A big part of Muslims' gripe against Israel is that they don't think Israel (which is armed to the teeth, including nukes) gives Palestinians the respect they deserve in their own even tinier, even littler country."

Your comments show that you have zero grasp of this situation. For staters, there was never a nation of "Palestine". And today there is no nation of Palestine. Thus, it is one the bad jokes of the muslim world that these people pretend to have a nationality that they want to resurrect.

You wrote:

"A big part of the Muslim gripe against the U.S. is its one-sided support of Israel, perceived or real."

If you believe your own statement either you are nuts, or you believe the muslims are nuts.

Egypt is a major beneficiary of US largesse. But, more significantly are those billions and billions of petro-dollars that flow into the middle-east oil shiekdoms.

The Kuwaitis seem to have developed a workable situation. They all share the pie. But Kuwait is a small country.

The Saudis are not so equitable. The Royal family seems to receive much of the oil money. Of course Iraq an Iran have always demonstrated the usual muslim idiocy when it comes to handling the greatest geological gift the Earth has ever offered.

Meanwhile, the muslim idea of helping fellow muslims involves sending payments to families whose sons have killed non-muslims in suicide bombings.

You have obviously missed the repeated messages of hamas and hezbollah. These organizations exist to destroy Israel and kick the Jews out of the middle east. Killing them is the preferred method. Picking up where the nazis left off is one of their finer ambitions.

There is zero desire among muslims to develop a two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and the so-called palestinians.

The "palestinians" are the only refugee group in history to increase in number over time. When refugees come to the US, the refugees generally become Americans. If their children are born here, they are automatically Americans.

But the nations of the middle east won't permit the so-called palestinians to become Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians or Egyptians. The refusal to permit the assimilation of these people serves a demented political purpose.

The muslim world hopes these so-called palestinians will acquire the "right of return", which would grant them instant citizenship in Israel. Since there are now over 4 million so-called palestinians, their numbers would allow them to dominate voting in Israel.

If that were to happen, they would vote out the democratic government and install an islamic theocracy. That would lead to the end of things for Jews in Israel.

You wrote:

"Darwish calls the conflict a crisis of the soul, not a crisis over land. But land is where you live, which Israel shows it believes by constanty nibbling away at Palestinian land.""

Once again, you show zero knowledge of the situation. Israel has granted about 95% of the land demands made by those attempting to frame the negotiations for a palestinian state.

Sovereign boundaries have changed hands endless times over the centuries. There's lots of land over which disputes or tensions exist.

To settle the problems in Yugoslavia, the country was broken into three segments. Was each group perfectly satisfied with the demarcations? Not likely. But it's done and the significant problems of the former Yugoslavia seem to have ended.

The palestinians, of course, show no willingness settle for a good deal when they really want only one deal -- the deal where Israel is destroyed and the Jews are out of the middle east.

Any outcome short of that means the muslims must grant official recognition to the state of Israel, which they do not now do.

Keep in mind that Israeli Jews are not allowed to enter Dubai. Why? Because they are Jews.

[roger]

anarcissie: much of the 19th century relations between whites and native americans was deplorable. manifest destiny is a vulgar philosophy.

as for 20th and 21st century international relations i would tend to say that we need to index this activity against threats from socialism and islam. especially after the second world war the relationship between the united states and the soviets was one of deterrence. the soviet threat against our allies in western europe was credible. military bases in europe were a necessary precaution. the asian theatre including vietnam was also containment and deterrence although less well engineered. hiroshima nagasaki in my opinion were mistakes and an unnecesary show of power to the soviets. iraq will be evaluated 20 years from now as a success if a stable govt can be formulated. all these are and were an effort to meet a global threat with varying degrees of cedibility and success. i read another blog by joe bageant who frequently comments on the exploits of the empire and the disgrace of imperialism. it seems exaggerated to my reading of history.

[roger]

eagle: So they should just cut all that queer crap and do their patriotic part to whip up bellicose sentiment for an attack on Iran by concentrating on FGM in Muslim countries.

no they should teach a legitmate and authentic curriculum and leave the social engineering crap to the sociopaths.

[roger]

meanwhile at the university of delaware:

http://thefire.org/index.php/article/8555.html/print

i love that diversity training.

[Chickensh*tEagle]

chris -- a few questions:

"But, as with all aspects of the middle east oil industry, it takes non-muslims to handle the important work."

I'm curious -- what is it about being a Muslim that, in your view, disqualifies one from handling important work in the oil industry?

"The muslim world hopes these so-called palestinians will acquire the 'right of return,' which would grant them instant citizenship in Israel."

A right of return for Jews after a couple thousand years, but not for Palestinians after 60? What's up with that? Why shouldn't the Jews just assimilate in other countries? What's so special about their case?

"Keep in mind that Israeli Jews are not allowed to enter Dubai. Why? Because they are Jews."

Not allowed to enter as tourists, or to do business, or as immigrants? Does that also apply to, say, American Jews or South African Jews? If not, how can you say "because they are Jews?"

[Chickensh*tEagle]

roger: You'll be glad to know that U. of Delaware backed down on that proposed mandatory program.

However, the course you cite at Berkeley was, as you stated, "offered," not mandatory. What gives you the right to pronounce that course not authentic and illegitimate?

[chris]

chickenshit eagle you asked:

"I'm curious -- what is it about being a Muslim that, in your view, disqualifies one from handling important work in the oil industry?"

It is not their religion that disqualifies them. It is their lack of skill. I guess you have not noticed that there are no muslim companies that handle much of anything in muslim countries or elsewhere in the world. The plain and simple fact is this: the practice of islam precludes the pursuit of almost all other goals or acts of personal betterment. In other words, the muslim world and its education system produces no people educated in anything but repeating verses of the koran.

If a company wants to hire people with oilfield service skills it must look outside the muslim world for those with demonstrable capabilities. I'm not referring to no-skill or low-skill jobs.

You wrote:

"A right of return for Jews after a couple thousand years, but not for Palestinians after 60? What's up with that? Why shouldn't the Jews just assimilate in other countries? What's so special about their case?"

It's simple. There was never, ever, ever a country known as Palestine. The term refers to a region with the same sovereignty we attribute to the North Pole.

Meanwhile, before the state of Israel was formed, the area was controlled by the British. Before the British, the area was considered part of the Ottoman Empire, which had been collapsing for a couple of hundred years and was wiped out by WWI.

It was never an autonomous, independent sovereign nation. Thus, the "right of return" for Jews has no meaning.

The Balfour Agreement opened the door to the creation of Israel.

When Israel was formed, about 500,000 muslims were displaced. That was 1948. Of those 500,000, perhaps 200,000 are alive today. Those 200,000 might have some basis for claiming a right to return.

However, in the perverse muslim logic, all the descendants of the 500,000 displaced muslims have been included in the calculation of the refugee population, which now totals about 4 million. This is the only time in history, a claim like this has been made.

It's a ridiculous demand. If those displaced refugees had reached the US, their children would be American citizens. Not refugees.

Anyway, drawing and redrawing national boundaries is as old as government. Yugoslavia is a good example of breaking a country into three parts. We might see the same in Iraq.

The entire middle east is a hodge-podge of arbitrarily drawn boundaries that were meant to ease headaches faced by the European nations that were managing the region after World War I.

IN short, the so-called palestinians have nothing to stand on. They claim to be citizens of a nation that never existed. Meanwhile, their fellow muslims would rather maintain their misery over opening the door to a better life for them.

You wrote:

"Not allowed to enter as tourists, or to do business, or as immigrants? Does that also apply to, say, American Jews or South African Jews? If not, how can you say "because they are Jews?"

You've asked a several questions, suggesting that there are conditions for which YOU think it is reasonable to discriminate against Jews simply because they are Jews.

Here's the facts: Jews traveling with Israeli passports are not permitted to enter Dubai. Period.

Not long ago I had a little fun with a hotel in Dubai. I e-mailed the hotel that I would like a room and asked about the accommodations, following that with questions about getting a car for my wife to drive herself.

After establishing some rapport with the hotel, I mentioned that I was traveling under an Israeli passport. In response I received an e-mail from a new person who identified himself as the top person in the hotel reservation department. I was informed that it was not possible to rent a room to me if I were traveling with an Israeli passport. They are such swell people, those muslims.

[Muslims Against Sharia]

Muslims Against Sharia congratulate David Horowitz FREEDOM CENTER and Mike Adams, Tammy Bruce, Phyllis Chesler, Ann Coulter, Nonie Darwish, Greg Davis, Stephen Gale, David Horowitz, Joe Kaufman, Michael Ledeen, Michael Medved, Alan Nathan, Cyrus Nowrasteh, Daphne Patai, Daniel Pipes, Dennis Prager, Luana Saghieh, Rick Santorum, Jonathan Schanzer, Christina Sommers, Robert Spencer, Brian Sussman, Ed Turzanski, Ibn Warraq and other speakers on the success of the Islamofascism Awareness Week.

Islamofascism (or Islamism) is the main threat facing modern civilization and ignorance about this threat is astounding. We hope that this event becomes regular and reaches every campus.

A great many Westerners do not see the clear distinction between Islam and Islamism (Islamofascism). They need to understand that the difference between Islam and Islamism (Islamofascism) is the same as the difference between Christianity and Christian Identity Movement (White Supremacy Movement).

http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2007/10/islamofascism-awareness-week.html - Original post