BCT Editorial – 9/3/06

This page was last updated on September 4, 2006.

Fighting words; Editorial; Beaver County Times; September 3, 2006.

I’m not sure if the Times gets its talking points from the Democrat Party or the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial board.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Phrase ‘Islamic fascism’ is inaccurate when it comes to describing the real world

“In diplomacy, as in face-to-face relationships, it’s often not what you say but how you say it that causes problems.”

[RWC] Given the language routinely used by editorials to bash our national security efforts, I didn’t think the Times understood this concept. Now I know the Times just believes our country’s enemies deserve more consideration than Americans trying to defend the U.S.

“Subtlety matters, as does concern for the sensibilities of others.”

[RWC] After everything written by the Times about its economic, political, and social opponents, when did the Times become concerned “for the sensibilities of others?”

“Such is the case of the embrace of the phrase ‘Islamic fascism’ or ‘Islamo-fascism’ by President Bush, U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum and others. While it may make a snappy, short-term catch-phrase for domestic political consumption, it could have long-term, negative repercussions on the international level.

“Trudy Rubin, a columnist for The Philadelphia Inquirer, wrote that the phrase is inaccurate and offensive to Muslims who aren’t Islamists.”

[RWC] I continue to find it incredible that editorial writers treat other opinion writers as if they were a data source. Remember, “columnist” is media-speak for an opinion writer. Other than they get paid to write their columns, columnists are no different than letter-to-the-editor writers.

“To start with, ‘fascism’ describes a political doctrine, and Islam is a religion. Rubin reports Muslim critics say the use of that term defames their religion.”

[RWC] Earth to the Times. As practiced in most (all?) countries ruled by Muslims, Islam governs all aspects of society. I don’t know about anyone else, but that sounds like “a political doctrine” to me.

“The use of ‘Islamic’ adds to the offense. As Rubin points out, ‘it’s important to stress the difference between religious Muslims and those who use the religion for political purposes. Islamism is the term for a political ideology that misuses religious precepts as a tool to take power. Islamism is similar to the many ‘ism’s’ of the 20th century, and Islamists are its followers.’

“Therefore, a more accurate description would be ‘to use the term Islamist facism or fascist Islamism. The distinction is more than a semantic quibble,’ Rubin wrote.

“The misleading aspect of this phraseology applies on the home front, too. The United States is not engaged in a struggle with a traditional nation-state, and Islamist fascism is not monolithic.

“Rubin notes that ‘lumping all these groups under a single rubric creates the image of one worldwide and powerful jihadi movement, rather than disparate groups whose differences can be exploited.’

“‘The term ‘Islamo-fascism’ has political wings and plays to the president’s mantra of good vs. evil,’ Rubin wrote ‘But it obscures the complex nature of the struggle Americans will face over the next decade. It misleads more than it informs.’”

[RWC] Iran’s leadership said publicly in 2005, “Israel must be wiped off the map.” In 1979, Iran’s leadership said, “Americans are the great Satan, the wounded snake.” Where’s the “complex nature?” These guys want us subjugated or dead.

“Let’s put it in another context.

“Imagine the reaction in the United States if Muslim leaders referred to Bush as the leader of the ‘Methodist fascist’ movement and Santorum as heading a ‘Catholic Falangist’ movement, and lumped anyone who agreed with those two into the same categories.”

[RWC] There are a few problems with this paragraph.

First, “Muslim leaders” do what the editorial claims. Remember, to Muslims, non-Muslims are “infidels.”

Second, I don’t see any Catholic or Methodist attempt to subjugate the world and kill all non-Catholics or non-Methodists.

Third, the Times apparently forgets the violence in England, Ireland, Northern Ireland was routinely portrayed as Catholics vs. Protestants.

“No matter what Americans think about Bush’s and Santorum’s politics, we’d like to believe that most people would be offended by the linkage of their faiths to an inaccurate description of their politics, and that Americans of all faiths would particularly resent Christians being tarred by such a broad brush merely because they were of the same faith.”

[RWC] Remember, to the vast majority of Muslims – especially those outside the U.S., their religion and politics are one in the same. The idea that government and religion should not be intertwined is a distinctly Western construct. For example, in countries run by Muslims – even including Afghanistan, conversion from Islam is considered a crime punishable by death.

“Bush, Santorum and others need to be more careful in the words they are using. There’s a world of difference between a war of words and words of war. The saying ‘them’s fightin’ words’ didn’t come from nowhere.”

[RWC] Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

I did a search of the Times website and found no editorials taking Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) to task when in 2005 he compared our military to “Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others.”

So let me get this straight. While it’s wrong to label Islamofascists as fascists, it’s perfectly OK to refer to our own military as fascists?

Here’s the bottom line. I believe the Times doesn’t really care about Islamofascist vs. “Islamist fascist.” I can guarantee we’d have seen nearly exactly the same editorial had President Bush, et al used “Islamist fascist” to label the enemy. You see, folks like the editorial author don’t want our enemy labeled at all. Labeling an enemy makes it easier for people to understand who are enemy is. It’s easier for critics to throw rocks when the enemy goes unidentified.