Tuesday, August 15, 2006

It's not Islamo-fascism, it's Islamo-Nazism:

Or at least that's the term being used by Michael Medved on his radio show today.

Expect much, much more of this hysteria as we get closer to election day.


It seems we're to oppose Islamofascists, but not, you know, any other actual fascists.

Anyone who thinks the term "Islamofascists" is not conflating the religious faith with fascism should try a couple of other religous prefixes to see what they sound like.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/15/2006 6:00 PM  

How can they be Nazis when they're pretty much stateless?

Yeah, there's theoretically some sort of pan-arabism, but from what I've read, you've got the actual armed and dangerous factions who are more about gaining political control within their own localities, and then you've got the theocratic political allies who are supporting the armed groups because they are creating political instability that they believe they can exploit to advance their aims.

Of course, what they aren't picking up on is that once you unleash terrorists, they cut both ways. Every revolution can have a counter-revolution, and whatever entity gains power via violence can and will be displaced by violence later.

Except Castro. For some reason, that never quite worked in his case. I still don't really understand that.

By Blogger Jeremy, at 8/16/2006 7:12 AM  

Post a Comment