Comments on: Horowitzofoppism

By: Muslims Against Sharia

Muslims Against Sharia — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 23:26:01 +0000

Muslims Against Sharia congratulate David Horowitz FREEDOM CENTER and Mike Adams, Tammy Bruce, Phyllis Chesler, Ann Coulter, Nonie Darwish, Greg Davis, Stephen Gale, David Horowitz, Joe Kaufman, Michael Ledeen, Michael Medved, Alan Nathan, Cyrus Nowrasteh, Daphne Patai, Daniel Pipes, Dennis Prager, Luana Saghieh, Rick Santorum, Jonathan Schanzer, Christina Sommers, Robert Spencer, Brian Sussman, Ed Turzanski, Ibn Warraq and other speakers on the success of the Islamofascism Awareness Week.

Islamofascism (or Islamism) is the main threat facing modern civilization and ignorance about this threat is astounding. We hope that this event becomes regular and reaches every campus.

A great many Westerners do not see the clear distinction between Islam and Islamism (Islamofascism). They need to understand that the difference between Islam and Islamism (Islamofascism) is the same as the difference between Christianity and Christian Identity Movement (White Supremacy Movement).

Original post

By: Julian Elson

Julian Elson — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 05:35:11 +0000

So in short, Horowitz is a troll, but he’d have difficulty taking out ads consisting of goatse.cx in college papers, so he has to offend people with marginally more subtlety.

By: Gil

Gil — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:32:53 +0000

Julian,

I think the reason that you are perplexed by the actions of (some of) the left is that your theories about them are wrong.

I’m not defending Horowitz completely, but I think it’s possible that he understands some aspects of a segment of the left that you would prefer to ignore, or perhaps (more kindly) give a bit too much benefit of the doubt.

Maybe they don’t merely object to the term for your reasons, and maybe they do reflexively defend indefensible strains of thought because they care too much about common enemies and too little about hideous ideology.

By: Glen Whitman

Glen Whitman — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 07:51:05 +0000

I just don’t see the problem. Sure, ‘Fascism’ with a capital F was a very specific doctrine in the 1930s, but ‘fascism’ now is commonly used to refer to any ideology that justifies killing, enslavement, and oppression by the state. Don’t the Taliban and Al Qaeda qualify? Yeah, sure, they have their differences — but so did 1930s Germany and Italy.

Is Islamofascism different from the fascism of the 1930s? Yes, hence the ‘Islamo-.’ Aren’t there varieties of Islam that are not fascist? Yes, hence the ‘-fascist.’ I think the word ‘Islamofascism’ nicely describes a group of people who are using Islam to justify brutality.

And you know me, so you know I’m not a crazy neocon GWOT-justifier. You can use the word ‘Islamofascism’ without signing on to the invasion of random countries in the Middle East.

By: Jim Henley

Jim Henley — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 03:05:08 +0000

An important goal of Greater Islamofascism Week is to deligitimize Muslim Americans as political actors – to turn them into a suspect class. It’s a preemptive war against any attempt on their part to bring the same interest-group activism to foreign policy that Irish-Americans and Jewish Americans and Cuban-Americans and Americans of Eastern-European descent (during the Cold War) have done. Lots of people criticize IAW for “blurring distinctions” and etc. That’s what it’s supposed to do.

By: Mike P

Mike P — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:37:32 +0000

“Horowtiz’s MO is crystal clear by this point, so I’m a bit perplexed as to why the left, like Charlie Brown running to kick that football yet again, keeps playing into his hand.”

Well, I think it’s a case of you can do something or you can do nothing and doing something makes you feel better than doing nothing.

What’s more frustrating than the predictable backlash is the predictable coverage that this kind of stunt is given. I view your argument as similar to the ones aired whenever Ann Coulter slithers back into the public view after making offense comments. Whatever her motivations (I think most of us who care to consider them believe she’s acting out a persona), she’s treated as “serious” (her books are bought by millions; she’s got a column that runs in a slew of newspapers) and her views are taken (by some) seriously. So you can be passive and let ignorant statements sit there with the hope that people will discount them as such, or you can say “hey, that’s ignorant/wrong/offensive” and try to fight back.

I’m not saying censor Coulter or Horowitz…but I don’t think sitting quietly is really going to prevent them from engaging in this sort of thing, either.