Antique World Map wallpaper circa 1780

World Mar circa 1780 by mathematician and teacher Samuel Dunn. Note the map of the moon’s surface, bottom center.

“Islamofascism” is term of propaganda. There is no substantive proof that such a phenomenon exists. 

Islamofascism misrepresents modern terrorism and Islam.

It makes little sense to use the word “fascism” to describe today’s terrorism threat. Al Qaeda and other 21st century terrorists do not rely on the nation-state concept that defined 20th century fascism. Whereas fascists used violence to create control out of disorder, contemporary terrorists derive ammunition from chaos.

Nor is it appropriate to employ a term that strongly implies that Islam and terror are synonymous. At first glance, one might agree with conservative New York Times columnist William Safire in his assessment of the label: “The compound defines those terrorists who profess a religious mission while embracing totalitarian methods and helps separate them from devout Muslims who want no part of terrorist means.” But most who use the term fail to make this crucial distinction; instead, they employ Islamofascism to imply that Islam and terror are fundamentally entwined. National Review columnist Deroy Murdock, for instance, supplements his case that Saddam Hussein supported Islamofascism—and therefore could be tied to Al Qaeda—by pointing out that Hussein “began to pray publicly to boost his ‘mosque-cred.'” David Horowitz, known for his fallacy-ridden attacks on academia, has organized “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” on college campuses across the country and has encouraged students to show the film “Islam: What the West Needs to Know.” According to Horowitz’s website, the movie depicts “the violent, expansionary ideology of the so called ‘religion of peace’ that seeks the destruction or subjugation of other faiths, cultures, and systems of government.”

Despite the claims of some of its supporters, Islamofascism is not used “sparingly or precisely.” The label has been slapped onto groups and individuals as diverse as Hezbollah, Saddam Hussein, and the Saudi government—denigrating Islam as a violent religion in the process. Theologians recognize Islam as a peaceful religion that shares theological roots and principles with Judaism and Christianity. Religious leaders such as Pope John Paul II and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, as well as political leaders such as Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and President Bush, have all publicly stated that Islam is a peaceful religion that warrants respect.

Part of a longer article with lots of links at Campus Progress.


Only the mob and the elite can be attracted by the momentum of totalitarianism itself. The masses have to be won by propaganda

Matt Drudge posts documents that are supposed to be damning of The New Republic and Scott Beauchamp then suddenly said proof disappears – dead link here and here. In addition Drudge has removed the original story. The New York Observer spoke with TNR editor Franklin Foer, TNR’s Foer: Drudge’s Documents Could Have Come Only From the Army

Franklin Foer, editor of The New Republic, said in an interview that the documents Matt Drudge posted this afternoon–and removed several hours later without explanation–could have only come from the Army.

Mr. Foer said he called TNR’s contact there, Major Kirk Luedeke, as soon as the documents appeared on Drudge’s Web site. According to Mr. Foer, Major Luedeke told him that the Army was “investigating the source of the leak,” though they did not explicitly take responsibility for it.

“It’s maddening to see the Army selectively leak to the Drudge Report things that we’ve been trying to obtain from them through Freedom of Information Act requests,” Mr. Foer said. “This fits a pattern in this case where the army has leaked a lot of stuff to right wing blogs.”

Mr. Foer said TNR had been trying since July to get access to some of the documents Mr. Drudge posted, but that the Army had not cooperated.

Michelle Malkin famous or infamous for her lies about S-CHIP, her lies about the Latino organization MEChA, and extraordinarily can’t seem to get the fundmental facts straight about 9-11 or the American Muslim community say she has the poop on TNR. All of which suggests she shouldn’t be the go-to person on getting any facts straight much less entitled to any purely manufactured outrage over whether TNR dotted all its i’s. By Michelle Malkin • October 24, 2007 01:30 PM

Update 6:50pm Eastern. Franklin Foer comes out from under his desk to whine to the NY Observer about the transcripts being leaked. All of this damning transcript evidence of TNR’s attempts to cover up, and what does Foer do? He attacks the military again (emphasis mine)

To the caught drooling Malkin, the facts are the same thing as an attack. I looked at a couple of on-line dictionaries that they do not concur.The facts are truly a liberal bias. TNR is correct on this aspect of the Beauchamp bruhaha if nothing else: certain military personnel have provided leaks, unsubstantiated leaks at that, to war cheerleaders like the Weekly Standard while also withholding documentation from TNR who has filed a Freedom of Information request that hasn’t been complied with. Again, and this part is getting tiresome. Beauchamp might be completely in the wrong, maybe not, but no one has produced proof that Scott is a complete liar as the Right claims. John Cole reiterates what I’ve suggested before. That Beauchamp just wants the story to go away and obviously with the The Right-wing Stalker Brigade on his back that would be understandable, More Beauchamp

I would tell you what I thought of the leaked documents if the links at Drudge worked. From Kevin’s snippet, it appears that the latest transcript show that Beauchamp basically told everyone to piss off, that he just wanted everything to go away. Or, precisely what anyone with a brain would have predicted he would do (note the date I wrote that- 10 September) once the nutters had the brass jumping down his throat.

You’re a soldier in Iraq under fire (something that Malkin and the usual cadre of chickenhawks wouldn’t understand) you try your hand at a little first person journalism and you do get a few things wrong. Then unlike the Right who suffers from a terminal lack of humility you admit you screwed up, then the brass decides to grill your ass. Within this bubble of who said what when there are a couple of things missing from the intense rabidness on the Right, a little humility and proportion. They’re incredibly paranoid that somehow the Beauchamp story will tarnish the bright shiny picture that try to paint of Iraq and the worse president in American history. Whatever the end of the story on TNR and Beauchamp ends up it doesn’t change how badly the Right has behaved the last forty years, the last ten in particular and the river of lies they rode to power. The Beuachamp story regardless of how it ends does not compensate America for all the damage that the Right has done, how they have twisted and mangled genuine values and patriotism. No doubt they will continue to turn like little worms with these relatively minor Beauchamp-like flare ups , pissing and whining from under the bleachers, but that is where the sweep of public opinion has put them and is where they are going to stay. Let me quote Balloon Juice again from a reply he made to one of his commenters,

Every post I wrote about this was one mocking the nutters for freaking out about this. Never once did I say that Beauchamp’s stories were true. What I mocked was the notion that they were disproven with assertions that “soldiers don’t mock people” or sand table exercises with scale models of Bradley’s.

The Right just doesn’t get it. Over three thousand soldiers are dead, tens of thousands wounded maimed or crippled. Iraq is a desert hell hole, Bin Laden is chuckling in a cave somewhere in Pakistan, the total bill for Afghanistan and Iraq is over the two trillion dollars mark. The Right jumps up and down waving their tired little arms saying please please America don’t think about what is important, think about Scott Beauchamp...please please we beg you, the Beauchamp story is the biggest most important story since Hillary gave her cat to a friend.


Malkin says that her fellow ideologues at The National Review don’t get. It is pretty simple. M’s Lopez read what Drudge made available. It wasn’t the smoking gun the right-wing bloggers all say it is. What’s that called when someone is so bent on revenge that they sell out their own credibility.

Only the mob and the elite can be attracted by the momentum of totalitarianism itself. The masses have to be won by propaganda ~ Hannah Arendt