posted August 30, 2006 12:16 PM            

quote:

---

"Typically, the Bush administration finds its vocabulary someplace in the middle ground of popular culture. It seems to me that they're trying to find something that resonates, without any effort to really define what they mean," Fields said.

---

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President George W. Bush has recast his global war on terror in recent days into a "war against Islamic fascism."

Fascism, in fact, seems to be the new buzz word for Republicans in an election season dominated by an unpopular war in Iraq.

Bush used the term this month, in talking about the arrests of suspected terrorists in Britain, and spoke of "Islamic fascists" in a later speech in the middle America state of Wisconsin. Spokesman Tony Snow has used variations on the phrase at White House press briefings.

Republican Senator Rick Santorum, in a tough re-election fight, drew parallels on Monday between World War II and the current war against "Islamic fascism," saying they both require fighting a common foe in multiple countries. It is a phrase Santorum has been using for months.

And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday took it a step further in a speech to an American Legion convention in Utah, accusing critics of the administration's Iraq and anti-terrorism policies of trying to appease "a new type of fascism." Many American Legion members were soldiers who fought fascism during World War II.

White House aides and outside Republican strategists said the new description is an attempt to identify more clearly the ideology that motivates many organized terrorist groups and represents a shift in emphasis from the general to the specific.

"I think it's an appropriate definition of the war that we're in," said GOP pollster Ed Goeas. "I think it's effective in that it definitively defines the enemy in a way that we can't because they're not in uniforms."

Muslim groups have cried foul. Bush's use of the phrase "contributes to a rising level of hostility to Islam and the American-Muslim community," complained Parvez Ahmed, chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Conservative commentators have long talked about "Islamo-fascism," and Bush's phrase was a slightly toned-down variation on that theme.

Dennis Ross, a Middle East adviser in the administrations of Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton and now the director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said he would have chosen different words.

Middle ground
"The 'war on terror' has always been a misnomer, because terrorism is an instrument; it's not an ideology. So I would always have preferred it to be called the 'war with radical Islam,' not with Islam but with 'radical Islam,"' Ross said.

Why even mention the religion? "Because that's who they are," Ross said. "Fascism had a certain definition. Whether they meet this or not, one thing is clear: They're radical. They represent a completely radical and intolerant interpretation of Islam."

While "fascism" once referred to the rigid nationalistic one-party dictatorship first instituted in Italy, it has "been used very loosely in all kinds of ways for a long time," said Wayne Fields, a specialist in presidential rhetoric at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri.

"Typically, the Bush administration finds its vocabulary someplace in the middle ground of popular culture. It seems to me that they're trying to find something that resonates, without any effort to really define what they mean," Fields said.

Pollster Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, said the "fascist" label may evoke comparisons to World War II and remind Americans of the lack of personal freedoms in fundamentalist countries. "But this could only affect public opinion on the margins," he said.

"Having called these people 'evildoers,' fascism is just a new wrinkle," he said.

The tactic recalled the first President Bush's 1990 likening of Iraq's Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler.

Focus group
"I caught hell on this comparison of Saddam to Hitler, with critics accusing me of personalizing the crisis, but I still feel it was an appropriate one," the elder Bush later wrote in a memoir.

It was one of the few times the younger Bush has followed his father's path on Iraq.

Charles Black, a longtime GOP consultant with close ties to both the first Bush administration and the current White House, said branding Islamic extremists as fascists was apt.

"It helps dramatize what we're up against. They are not just some ragtag terrorists. They are people with a plan to take over the world and eliminate everybody except them," Black said.

Stephen J. Wayne, a professor of government at Georgetown University, suggested White House strategists "probably had a focus group, and they found the word 'fascist.'

"Most people are against fascists of whatever form. By definition, fascists are bad. If you're going to demonize, you might as well use the toughest words you can," Wayne said.

After all, the hard-line Iranian newspaper Jomhuri Eskami did just that in an editorial last week blasting Bush's "Islamic fascism" phrase. It called Bush a "21st century Hitler" and British Prime Minister Tony Blair a "21st century Mussolini."

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

posted August 30, 2006 01:14 PM            

Bush has never deviated from the facts as he sees them that we're fighting a global war on terrorists and terrorism..including the terrorist nations and regimes who send terrorists out as proxies to fight for them.

The word fascist or fascists may be new to his descriptive language but they're exactly the same people, groups and regimes he's always talked about.

Further acoustic, it's a historical fact these same radical Islamic groups and their precursors supported Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin...all of whom were part and parcel of the same radical concept of totalitarian government...and in the case of Hitler and Mussolini, the left labeled "fascists". But Hitler and Mussolini were in fact "socialists", a fact the radical left has attempted to run away from since the end of WWII.

Just to be clear here acoustic, Saddam Hussein was also a "socialist". A totalitarian dictator just like Hitler, like Mussolini and like Stalin, who tailored his government along the very same lines as Stalin, whom he admired greatly.

The word "fascist" appeared in the name of the political party of Benito Mussolini. The party Mussolini founded in Italy.

Which only proves another point acoustic. When the heat gets turned up on leftist as$es , they change their name to cool things down.

Note acoustic, the "progressives" are the leftover residue of the old Communist Party USA. In an attempt to remove the stench which hung around them like a shroud, they became "progressives". Even the press noted their pink to red hue.

But what does Bush using the word fascists have to do with anything since he's talking about the very same terrorists, terror groups and terrorist regimes? Is it your point that the word fascists is a more compelling or terrifying word than terrorists and therefore more likely to strike a responsive chord with American voters?

posted August 30, 2006 02:03 PM            

quote:

---

Is it your point that the word fascists is a more compelling or terrifying word than terrorists and therefore more likely to strike a responsive chord with American voters?

---

Precisely. I'm pointing out the continued linguistics battle that your Party is waging on America. Someone's already created the argument regarding use of the term: http://forum.truthout.org/blog/?op=displaystory;sid=2006/8/18/4394/11803

So, did you make up all that stuff about the terrorists aligning with fascists? Can you show me that "historical fact?" Let me guess... I'm supposed to just take you at your word on this?

posted August 30, 2006 02:08 PM              

Anywhoo ~ I'm often of the opinion that any and all governments tend towards fascism at certain times, in one way or the other, at least in the nationalistic and authoritanistic sense of the word. Our present government not excluded.

BTW Comparing Sadaam to Hitler was, I feel, terribly inaccurate of Bush Sr. Sadaam and Stalin? Hell yeah. But not Hitler. Utterly different mind-frame there.

posted August 30, 2006 02:28 PM              

This situation is unprecedented, because it's almost impossible to refer to Islamic extremist terrorist groups without offending moderate Islamics. I know this first hand

An analogy might be, say there was a new breed of Apple, which has been found to be poisonous. Let's say we've begun referring to this type of apple as a "rogue apple". You can't tell a rogue apple from a granny smith apple, or a spartan apple, or a fiji apple, etc - So, people are becoming a bit fearful of all apples - green, yellow and red. This of course, is not fair to the yummy healthy apples, but the Rogue apple is a dangerous apple. People clearly know that most apples are good apples, but they can't tell the difference, so they're leery. The good apples are tired of hearing all the negative talk about the bad apples. Maybe some people are even turning off of apples altogether, so the good apples are starting to feel unappreciated and misjudged, because BAD & APPLE are being used in the same sentence so often.

So, they start calling all the people "Apple Haters. But, the people aren't apple hater at all. They're just fearful of the rogue apples. So, does that mean they shouldn't talk about the rogue apples anymore, because the healthy apples don't like it?

Who is in the wrong? The people who talk about the rogue apples, the healthy apples who are feeling misjudged, or the rogue apples that are poisening people?

The rogue apples aren't just poisening people, they are also causing much animosity and tension between the people and the healthy good apples. They are poison in more ways than one.

Now, this is not to say that Islamic people are not really people, but rather "apples" - this is just a simplistic way of putting the current social climate into perspective.

I hope I did not offend anybody

posted August 30, 2006 02:50 PM            

Both were socialists.

Both were dictators.

Both were nationalists. National socialists.

Both attempted to extend their territory through direct military conquest.

Both had secret police forces.

Both used terror tactics against their populations.

--------------

Hitler and Stalin were both socialists.

Hitler and Stalin were both socialist dictators

Hitler and Stalin both had plans to rule the world.

Hitler and Stalin were mirror images. The only difference between the two were the means by which they attempted to extend their empires.

Stalin by internal subversion and overthrow of existing governments.

Hitler by direct military conquest.

There were other similarities.

Both had a secret police force.

Both used terror tactics on their populations.

Both had concentration camps for dissidents and others whom they considered disloyal, inferior or troublemakers.

Both systematically starved and worked to death those in their gulags.

The results of their actions were identical. The difference was in their methods of conquest.

Their only real disagreement was over who was going to be top thug. We can see Hitler's thinking when he suddenly split his military forces in Europe and attacked Russia.

Hitler foresaw the possibility that after a long bloody war with the Allies, his military forces would be exhausted, his equipment worn out and depleted, his ability to make war diminished..even if he won.

Hitler didn't want his competition sitting out the war, reserving his troops, equipment and war capacity and able to attack him when he would be the weakest..even if he won.

posted August 30, 2006 02:58 PM            

Feel free to "disprove" the contents and thrust of this article acoustic.

The Nazi Origins of Modern Arab Terror
Chuck Morse
Tuesday, March 4, 2003

The agenda and political faith of Saddam Hussein, Yasir Arafat, Osama bin Laden, Hamas and the rest of the international Islamic terrorists can be traced back to World War II and two key figures, Adolf Hitler and Amin al-Husseini, known as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.
Much has been written about the Mufti, all well-documented, including chapters by such prominent authors as Connor Cruise O’Brien, former Irish ambassador to the U.N. Mountains of documented evidence is out there and available to anyone who cares to look.

The Nuremberg and Eichmann trials revealed that Nazi official Adolf Eichmann met with the British-appointed Mufti in Palestine in 1937. Following this meeting, the Mufti would become essentially an agent of Nazi Germany charged with the funding and organizing of pro-Nazi organizations in Egypt, Syria, Palestine and Iraq.

In 1941, along with Rashid Ali and Khairallah Tulfah, Saddam Hussein’s uncle, guardian and later father-in-law, the Mufti instigated a pro-Nazi coup in Iraq with Nazi-supplied weapons and aircraft. After the coup failed, the Mufti fled to Berlin, where he would hold his first of several meetings with Adolf Hitler.

At this meeting the Mufti was reported to have dissuaded Hitler from considering the deportation of the Jews to Palestine. Instead, the Mufti advocated and even possibly suggested what came to be known as the final solution against the Jews. In 1942, the Mufti would intervene and stop the Nazis from exchanging 10,000 Jewish children for Nazi POWs.

The Mufti’s activities in Nazi Germany and occupied Europe would set the stage for today’s Islamic terrorism. On April 25, 1941, the Nazis sent the Mufti to Nazi-occupied Bosnia, where he assumed the title “Protector of Islam.”

On Feb. 10, 1943, Hitler ordered the creation of the Nazi SS Division Hanzar and approximately 100,000 Bosnian Muslims volunteered. The Mufti, serving as chief administrator, referred to these Nazi-Muslim brigades as “the cream of Islam.”

The Hanzars, deriving their name from the type of dagger carried by Ottoman officers, played an active role in the extermination of Christians and Jews in the Balkans. The Mufti attempted to implement the Nazi “Pejani Plan,” which called for the extermination of the Christian Serbs and which the Nazis eventually abandoned.

All in all, the Bosnian Muslim Hanzars assisted in the extermination of approximately 200,000 Christian Serbs, 40,000 Gypsies and 22,000 Jews.

In 1943, Hitler appointed the Mufti as head of a Nazi-Muslim government in exile. From his headquarters in Berlin, a confiscated Jewish mansion, the Mufti laid out plans for a concentration camp for Jews near Nablus in Palestine modeled after Auschwitz. Photos exist of the Mufti touring Auschwitz with Heinrich Himmler.

Nazi attitudes regarding Islam were perhaps best expressed by Himmler, who is reported to have stated: “I have nothing against Islam because it educates the men in this division for me and promises them heaven if they fight and are killed in action. A very practical and attractive religion for soldiers.”

Deriving financial support from a fund of confiscated Jewish money known as the Sonderfund, the Mufti was installed as head of the Nazi-created Islamic Institute (Islamische Zentralinstitut) in Dresden, where he would begin the process of educating future Islamic leaders in Nazi ideology.

To spur them on to victory, the Mufti delivered a speech in Berlin on March 1, 1944, to an audience of Hanzar troops in which he said: “Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases god, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you.”

On that day, future Islamic terrorists received their marching orders.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/3/154714.shtml

posted August 30, 2006 03:20 PM            

Hitler's Iraq
By Grant Jones
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 14, 2004

Last month Daniel Pipes, a leading scholar on Islamic terrorism, wrote an article entitled, “They’re Terrorists—Not Activists.” In it Pipes catalogs twenty evasive terms used by the media for the word “terrorist.” A twenty-first euphemism is now coming into vogue: “the Iraqi resistance.” Michael Moore has become a cheerleader for the “resistance.” He states on his website, “The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘The Enemy.’ They are the Revolution, the Minutemen...” (michaelmoore.com, April 14, 2004).

Actually, those that are trying to re-establish the secular Baath dictatorship, or its Islamist equivalent, are pure evil. They are nihilists. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush referred to Saddam’s Baath dictatorship as Fascist and Nazi. He was not far off the mark as Saddam’s behavior certainly qualifies. Saddam’s aggression against Iraq’s neighbors has cost over one million lives. Saddam filled trenches with the bodies of hundreds-of-thousands of innocent men, women and children.

Fruit does not fall far from the tree. The origins of Saddam’s dictatorship date back to World War II. On 3 April 1941 Rashid Ali overthrew the Iraqi government, which was friendly with the British and Allied cause. As the result of the 1932 treaty establishing Iraq’s independence, the British maintained bases at Basra and Habbaniya (not far from Falluja). The latter base was attacked by units of the Iraqi army and laid under siege. The situation was serious, “By 13 May [1941] new decrypts revealed that German aircraft with Iraqi markings had arrived in Syria, the next day they began bombing the British forces which were entering Iraq...” (John Keegan, The Second World War).

This was consistent with “Hitler’s Directive No. 30. Middle East” dated 23 May 1941: “The Arab Freedom Movement is, in the Middle East, our natural ally against England... I have decided to push the development of operations in...support of Iraq...it may later be possible to wreck finally the English position between the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf.” (Winston S. Churchill, The Grand Alliance) Meanwhile, “In Syria a committee was formed to mobilize support for the Rashid Ali regime. This was the nucleus of what later became the Ba’th Party, rival branches of which came to govern both Syria and Iraq.” (Bernard Lewis, The Middle East)

Fortunately for the world, Winston Churchill did not wait for the results of a “Global Test.” He immediately moved troops, which were badly needed to stop General Erwin Rommel’s Africa Corps in Libya, into both Syria and Iraq. The British and Indian troops made short work of Iraq’s army. Rashid Ali fled to an appropriate hiding place: Berlin. This was Ali’s second fall from power. Less than a year after gaining independence, in 1933 Ali became Iraq’s Prime Minister under King Faysal. At this time there was an uprising of Assyrian Christians, concerned about their place in the new nation. While the King was out of the country, Ali proceeded to use harsh measures, “In clashes with the Iraqi troops several hundred Assyrians were brutally killed.” (Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropedia, 1984 edition q.v. “Iraq”) Loyal to his roots, Saddam Hussein had resurrected Rashid Ali as a hero of Baathist Iraq.

It is not surprising that both the secular Fascists of Syria and the medieval theocrats of Iran and Al Qaeda should unite in attacking those that would bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East. Nihilists united in hate recognize their common ambitions and enemies. Their purpose is to destroy what chance there is for democracy in Iraq, after which they will fight it out for power. A classic example of nihilists uniting to destroy freedom is the Enabling Act passed by the German Reichstag on 23 March 1933. This act made Hitler dictator of Germany by a vote of 444 to 84. On the surface it seems peculiar that Communists delegates would vote for such a measure along with the Nazis. But only on the surface, the Nazis and Communists were just two different gangs with a common enemy, the first democracy Germany ever had, the Weimar Republic.

Nihilism is an accurate term for Communists, Nazis, Baath Party Fascists and Islamist terrorists. According to Webster’s: “Nihilism, The doctrine which denies any objective ground of moral principles; called also ethical nihilism...The doctrine that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake...In loose usage, revolutionary propaganda; terrorism.” Or as Faust defined the nihilist credo, “All that exists, deserves to perish.”

Then there are the nihilist enablers who should know better. There are: Michael Moore, quoted above; Markos Zuniga, at his “Daily Kos” website, who wrote “screw them” in reference to the Americans murdered in Falluja, characterizing the victims as “mercenaries;” Kofi Annan who pursues the U.N’s anti-Western vendetta while sub-Sahara Africa burns; International Answer referring to the terrorist killer Ahmed Yassin as “a political leader;” International Solidarity Movement, who in solidarity with terrorists, sends human shields into Gaza to protect the terrorists’ communication tunnels; Nicholas “Million Mogadishus” De Genova of Columbia ranted, “The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military.” De Genova defines “peace” as “a world where the U.S. would have no place.”***Note, this is the George Soros "final solution" a world where America would have no place

posted August 30, 2006 04:04 PM            

It's fairly documented that Hussein admired Stalin and modeled his government along Stalinist lines.

The ancestry of radical Islamics in the Middle East can be traced back to Nazi "fascist" sources.

Whether George H.W. Bush knew that when he made that comment about Hussein is unknown. Then of course, Hussein was a secularist (which would not disqualify him as a fascist) and only wore his Islamic religious face when situations and circumstances required it or demanded it.

I don't need any extra incentive to oppose terrorists and terrorism springing from any source. Adding the word "fascist" to the descriptive mix doesn't give it any extra oomph for me.

posted August 30, 2006 04:24 PM            

Of course, some of those would gladly burn the world down to make way for a new order founded on "their" truth

posted August 30, 2006 04:52 PM              

quote:

---

Yeah, the Nihilists are ever present and recognizable when they deny there is any "objective" truth...your truth, my truth, his truth, her truth...what's the difference?

---

posted August 30, 2006 08:20 PM              

Why would they be "sympathetic to Hitler"?

Why would they agree with "anti-Jew sentiment"?

posted August 30, 2006 08:49 PM              

quote:

---

"The 'war on terror' has always been a misnomer, because terrorism is an instrument; it's not an ideology. So I would always have preferred it to be called the 'war with radical Islam,' not with Islam but with 'radical Islam,"' Ross said.

Why even mention the religion? "Because that's who they are," Ross said. "Fascism had a certain definition. Whether they meet this or not, one thing is clear: They're radical. They represent a completely radical and intolerant interpretation of Islam."

---

interpretation of Islam

Someone's interpretation does not mean that this interpretation is inherent in the religion.

posted August 31, 2006 12:13 AM            

But high officials in the religion of Islam do not exist in a vacuum..no matter what nation they may be from. They are known throughout the area...and what they are teaching.

Take the Grand Ayatollah Sistani of Iraq for instance. He's a Shiite..as are most Muslims in Iran. But he is well known throughout the Middle East.

Take Amin al-Husseini, known as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. He recruited Nazi sympathizers and organized cells in Egypt, Syria, Palestine and Iraq and later, after he went to Germany, he went to Bosnia and recruited about 100,000 Bosnian Muslims to the Nazi cause.

These people were widely known and had great influence across a wide spectrum of the Muslim world. Those who were in basic agreement were easily recruited and those who were not went about their business. Fortunately, most were not.

In any event, that's the reason for the statement in the article...that when the Grand Mufti made a speech in Berlin on March 1, 1944, to an audience of Hanzar (Muslim) troops it was the genesis for the radicalized terrorists of today.

BTW, the Grand Mufti was Arafat's uncle

posted August 31, 2006 02:48 AM              

...someone whose articles have been used here quite often to, quite blatantly put it, brainwash people.

Perhaps some people aren't really familiar with his lies and conniving tactics and are ignorant of the truth...

...so here's a little intro on this one lying terrorist and racist propagandist...

http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002665.html

Here are the articles directly if for some reason this thread isn't intact (for some reason Ive had to keep editing it a couple times to put it back to the way I posted it initially...has got to be some type of technical glitch)

New world order
Daniel Pipes, the expert of hate
http://www.voltairenet.org/article136260.html

posted August 31, 2006 03:14 PM            

I've also noticed that a lot of this stems from the Muslim Brotherhood, which started out as just an effort to return to traditional Islam but has morphed into some ugly things in multiple countries. I haven't found a direct correlation between the founder and fascism, but it seems like people within the Brotherhood were sympathetic to the Nazis.

This article notes the Arab-Germany connection that was still in play directly prior to 9/11: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64793-2002Sep10.html
While the above article talks about Arabs and Germany in a modern context. I've seen other articles, and instances of Muslims being associated with Germany. There's a highly regarded english translation of the Quran written by a German-educated Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali. Of course I'm not suggesting that he's a fascist or a Nazi-sympathizer. I'm just saying it was interesting to see that as part of his background.

Much of the stuff I've seen about the history and the attempts to link terrorists to fascism has been linked to Conservative sites. They like to quote Shahid Nickels (a member of Mohammed Atta's group) as saying, "Atta's worldview was based on a National Socialist way of thinking. He was convinced that 'the Jews' are determined to achieve world domination. He considered New York City to be the center of world Jewry, which was, in his opinion, Enemy Number One." If it's true, then that could be considered a link to fascism. However, I have yet to find that quote anywhere outside of Conservative news and blogs. It would be tremendously helpful if Conservatives started posting the sources for their materials.