|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:05 pm Post subject: Dr. Paul's Malpractice |
 |
|
| Quote: |
October 12, 2007
Dr. Paul's Malpractice
By Tom Bevan
In the spin room after the Republican debate on Tuesday evening in Dearborn, Mich., a reporter from the Arab-American News asked Ron Paul what he thought of the term "Islamic fascism."
"It's a false term to make people think we're fighting Hitler," Paul responded. "It's war propaganda designed to generate fear so that the war has to be spread."
Now, when Paul asserts that the war in Iraq is a mistake that is bankrupting America, he's making a serious argument which current polls suggest a majority of Americans agree with -- though not most Republicans. When he says 9/11 was the result of "blowback" from decades of U.S. foreign policy abroad, he's on somewhat more precarious ground, but at least there is still some shred of intellectual basis for his view -- albeit a Chomskyite one.
But when Paul says that the term "Islamic fascism" (or, for the purpose of discussion, its synonymous twin, "Islamofascism") is propaganda designed to spread war, he's veered off into the sort of paranoid fringe kookiness that keeps his campaign relegated to a side-show novelty act.
The term "Islamic fascism" was popularized, though not coined, by Christopher Hitchens, who wrote in the aftermath of September 11 that the attacks represented "fascism with an Islamic face" - which was itself a play off of previous variations of the same phrase. Long known for his Marxist beliefs, Hitchens, who supported the invasion of Iraq, has since fallen out of favor with the left. But that hardly makes him a propagandist who uses the term with the intent of "generating fear" and trying to spread war.
Indeed, as William Safire pointed out last year, since 9/11 the Bush administration has gone out of its way to find a label for the threat behind the attacks that is both accurate and politically correct:
"For instance, Bush has been sensitive from the first days after 9/11 to the wrong of tarring the vast majority of Muslims with guilt-by-association rhetoric. In straining to be fair, however, he set out a few suggested labels but declined to choose: 'Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant jihadism; still others, Islamofascism. Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam.'"
Paul often describes the perpetrators of September 11 -- as he did again at Tuesday's debate -- as "19 thugs" with box cutters. But if people who use the term "Islamofascism" are guilty of overhyping and propagandizing the threat posed by Islamic fundamentalists, surely with this description Paul is guilty of the opposite.
Paul subscribes to the view that religious fundamentalism is not the driving force behind Islamic terrorism and that if we simply remove all of our troops from Muslim parts of the world, attacks against America and the West will cease. That's not a totally illegitimate argument. Contrary to his position on Iraq, however, it is a deeply minority one.
In truth, many people across the political spectrum believe a strain of Islamic fundamentalism inimical to Western values is a driving force behind terrorist attacks -- from the bombs in Bali to the knife sticking out of Theo Van Gogh's chest - and it represents a threat that cannot be appeased. And, as Safire concluded in his October 2006 "On Language" column, the term "Islamofascism" does in fact effectively define those "who profess a religious mission while embracing totalitarian methods and helps separate them from devout Muslims who want no part of terrorist means."
That is not war propaganda. It is simply using language to define an enemy that represents a very real threat to the United States.
For Paul to ridicule the term "Islamofascist" as propaganda and to insinuate that anyone who uses it is a warmonger seeking to spread conflict in the Middle East shows how wildly out of touch he is with the vast majority of the American public. More to the point, Paul's willingness to so severely downplay the threat posed to America by Islamic fundamentalists calls into question his fitness to fulfill the constitutional duty of the Commander in Chief to protect the country from all threats, foreign and domestic. |
Tom Bevan is the co-founder and Executive Editor of RealClearPolitics.
Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/dr_pauls_malpractice.html at October 12, 2007 - 09:30:45 PM CDT |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sounds like a right-wing think tank. don't think that mud is going to stick. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atomic42
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Location: Gimhae
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Just ignore her like everyone else does. She apparently likes the new cut and paste feature on the Googles along with her bad TV quotes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atomic42 wrote: |
| Just ignore her like everyone else does. She apparently likes the new cut and paste feature on the Googles along with her bad TV quotes. |
atomic 24 hates the US that is why he gets mad when someone posts about Iran.
that is why he says the Korea war was US aggression even though w/o the wuss would have no job.
He even will side with Nazis since they hate the US like he does
Anyone who hates the US is Atomic42s friend.
Hating the US is atomic42 fashion statement. Atomic42 is a wuss.
I bet he is a cross dresser too.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| sounds like a right-wing think tank. don't think that mud is going to stick. |
Why is it mud? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atomic42
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Location: Gimhae
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
atomic 24 hates the US that is why he gets mad when someone posts about Iran.
that is why he says the Korea war was US aggression even though w/o the wuss would have no job.
He even will side with Nazis since they hate the US like he does
Anyone who hates the US is Atomic42s friend.
Hating the US is atomic42 fashion statement. Atomic42 is a wuss.
I bet he is a cross dresser too. |
Again, I couldn't give a toss about you, Iran, the US, Tootie and Blair, or anything else you feel so passionately about.
Tweak much? You're obviously delusional. Get a life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh no you hate the US. It gives your worthless existance meaning.
Hating the US is U being you.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atomic42
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Location: Gimhae
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ok, if I agree with you will you go away for ever and ever? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Some people on this board (including me, from time to time) use perjorative labels, probably unfairly, to describe others: fascist, nazi, communist etc. This seems appropriate at the time, but it is crude and replaces logic and reason with name calling.
Ron Paul is a gentleman in the true sense of the word. As much as he disagrees with others, he doesn't use such terms to describe them. Historically there are true fascists, nazis and communists, but using such terms for other groups and individuals is often done unfairly, inaccurately, to the detriment of rational discussion and understanding. And a gentleman doesn't do such things.
(Unfortunately, there are few on this board that anyone would accuse of being a gentleman.)
Ron Paul recognizes the evil represented by the groups referred to as "Islamofascist," but does that mean he must use that perjorative or even accept it. How about "earthnazi" or "baby killers" or ... There are so many, and perhaps we need someone with a little dignity, education, and propriety in the White House too.
Politeness and civility ended in the White House in November 1963 when LBJ took over. He was dirty, crude, little educated and uncivilized as were his successors in varying proportions. This is one more reason to vote for Ron Paul and restore dignity to the Presidency.
It would be nice to once again have a President who is Presidential. A dignified statesman of whom we can all be proud, even those who disagree with his positions could be proud. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The US needs someone who actually understands the threat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
Some people on this board (including me, from time to time) use perjorative labels, probably unfairly, to describe others: fascist, nazi, communist etc. This seems appropriate at the time, but it is crude and replaces logic and reason with name calling.
Ron Paul is a gentleman in the true sense of the word. As much as he disagrees with others, he doesn't use such terms to describe them. Historically there are true fascists, nazis and communists, but using such terms for other groups and individuals is often done unfairly, inaccurately, to the detriment of rational discussion and understanding. And a gentleman doesn't do such things.
(Unfortunately, there are few on this board that anyone would accuse of being a gentleman.)
Ron Paul recognizes the evil represented by the groups referred to as "Islamofascist," but does that mean he must use that perjorative or even accept it. How about "earthnazi" or "baby killers" or ... There are so many, and perhaps we need someone with a little dignity, education, and propriety in the White House too.
Politeness and civility ended in the White House in November 1963 when LBJ took over. He was dirty, crude, little educated and uncivilized as were his successors in varying proportions. This is one more reason to vote for Ron Paul and restore dignity to the Presidency.
It would be nice to once again have a President who is Presidential. A dignified statesman of whom we can all be proud, even those who disagree with his positions could be proud. |
Carter, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr. are all gentleman. Clinton was not one for name-calling. That's why Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. have a fondness for him. He knows how to separate politics from the personal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
