Bryan at Hot Air posts the above interview of Iraq Veterans Against the War’s Adam Kokesh by Jason Mattera. Kokesh was responsible for the smears of GWU and Young America’s Foundation, and has been involved with groups that support Leftist and Islamist causes, such as the International ANSWER group.
For more info and updates go to the post at Hot Air.
Also, check out this video of our good ol’ Islamofascist-supporting buddy, Umar Lee. Here he can be seen in all of his glory making racist comments to a black police officer at GWU.
Source: Incorrect University
14 Comments
Man, that was an annoying soundtrack.
While I would not say Kokesh was “pwned”, he did not do a very good job explaining what was wrong with the term “Islamofascism”. The problem is twofold. First, it is primarily associated with people like Ann Coulter, who is not exactly a Defender of the Faith. The connotations it carries are racist. Secondly, “Islamofascism” implies some sort of link or correlation between “Islam” and “fascism”. The Muslim community has been having a hard enough time disassociating itself from what I refer to as Apostasy without the language being stacked against them, too.
By the way, “Islamofascism Awareness Week” was observed here at Berkeley, too — sort of. I did not see a single demonstrator, flyer, or chalk message* about it, though I did see the nut who was disowned by the Berkeley College Republicans, and the large crowd of people calmly debating with him. What I did see was the overwhelming turnout of support for “Peace not Prejudice Week”. They did have flyers and chalk messages, and they also had what had to be at least a thousand (probably more like two or three) students walking around campus with green “Peace not Prejudice” t-shirts.
More info: http://tinyurl.com/32ymkp
That’s a shame, Sergei. If Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week was better promoted at your school, then more people could have heard the words of Nonie Darwish LINK: Photos and Video Complements of Incorrect University, Berkeley Lizards and Zombie.
Regarding Kokesh, it seems to me that he’s pwn3d on a regular basis. Did you hear about his smear of IFAW? Kokesh is scum, IMHO, and when faced with simple questions he came off sounding like an inarticulate little… well… Ron Paul supporter.
I think the term “Islamo-Fascism” was coined to tie the conflict rhetorically to the one conflict almost everyone can agree was necessary- WWII. As description of the problems facing the Middle East it seems lacking. The element of statism common to most fascism is absent in much of the Islamic thinking. I think it also over-simplifies the problems we face: Germany, Italy, and Japan had more in common ideologically than Iran, Palestinian activists, and Al-Qaeda, etc. Problems in the Middle East are not black or white, or even in shades of gray, but in full color.
Brian, Islamofascism is a term which distinguishes between true, peaceful Islam, and oppressive abusers of human rights and militant Islamists who do violence in the name of the religion. Islamofascists do not make a distinction between church and state, so the following Sharia is actually a type of totalitarian ideology for them, this is not compatible with a Western society.
Yes, but not even all Islamists are even particularly religious. Factions of the Palestianian movement are not and I’ve even read cases of suicide bombers who are not particularly pious. I agree that many groups within the Muslim world want to return to a theocracy or totalitarian state, I just think Islamofascism is just not a good descriptor. Take Egypt, totalitarian but is fighting against religious elements in the society that want Sharia because that would curtail the power of the state as it currently exists in that country. That attitude is much closer to fascism, than other elements of the Muslim world. Again “Islamofascism” is a rhetorical term that tries to shoe-horn the current struggle into the mold of WWII. I just think it obscures rather than illuminates the situation.
“Yes, but not even all Islamists are even particularly religious. Factions of the Palestianian movement are not and I’ve even read cases of suicide bombers who are not particularly pious.”
Huh? How can you be a non-religious religious fanatic?
I’ve even read cases of suicide bombers who are not particularly pious.
Brian, I do know that sometimes kids are recruited to “make a delivery” and they don’t always know there are explosives in the vehicle (this was Iraq). However I’ve never heard of non-religious martyr.
This doesn’t mean that these people are considered ‘pious’ by peaceful Muslims, but in a group like, say, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, suicide bombers are pretty much worshipped as the most pious of the pious.
They do it for political reasons and for personal fame. Recall the Anarchists movement of the 1910s- mostly political with atheistic undertones- also had suicide bombers. I’ve read reports of Israeli psychologists who study suicide bombers, who find a great many bombers are not that pious. They are often young men who are disaffected and see no hope for the future. They blame Israel for their circumstances and see suicide bombing as a way of striking back and going out in a blaze of glory. Recall that suicide bombers are celebrated and their families often cared for.
So they are in effect non-religious political fanatics.
Brian, I’ve never heard anyone argue that point before and frankly, it’s astonishing. It’s not like there are a bunch of Columbine wanna-bes in Hamas and Hezbollah. I would be interested in reading that study, did you have a link?
Here’s some stuff to look at:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/23/60minutes/main555344.shtml
(I think this is the report I saw and deals with an Israeli who studies failed suicide bombers)
And…
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html
An interview with Robert Papes who argues that most terrorism is executed against a perceived occupier, as a way or forcing a withdraw. He argues that the behavior is nor strictly religious with strong political overtones. One example the Marxist Tamil Tigers.
—”It’s not like there are a bunch of Columbine wanna-bes in Hamas and Hezbollah.”
I’m not sure that is true. Imagine that someone had encountered the Columbine kids a few months before their attack, recognized their rage and unbalance and turned that to a political end. We would be remembering them as domestic terrorists. I suspect that is what is going on in many of these countries- you have a group of leaders who want to effect a political change, they seek out “at-risk” youth, indoctrinate them with religion or political zeal and send them on the attack.
Brian, the first link you provide seems to illustrate how militant Islamists use religion to do violence:
“It’s the job of the organization, the cell, to get the terrorist to that point, the point of no return.”
The concept of dying as a martyr or “shaheed” is exploited by Islamofascists who have no problem sending young children to die.
Yes but it also makes the point that the individuals who act as suicide bombers are not particularly pious.
….But it’s not just the vision of Paradise that attracts these young men. In fact, many of them, Murad and Hamd included, say they were not particularly religious before they decided to become martyrs.
I guess my point is that the motivations of many terrorists are complex. I suspect that at the higher levels of leadership in many organizations, the main goals are political- drive out the Israelis, control oil wealth, etc. They will use political or religious means to convince young men to carry out attacks (when have you heard of a middle-age professional man doing this nonsense.) The motivations of these young men vary. Some may be swayed by politics and see the religious element as providing cover for their eternal souls, others may really see this as a religious struggle.
It seems to me that Papes suggests that most terrorism is essentially political with religion used as a motivational factor.
That’s why we say “Islamofascist” instead of “Muslim,” because they are distorting the message of the religion in order to further their fascist goals.
So things might be done in the name of religion but the true goal is political.
I’m just not sure fascist is the best term for those goals as it has too many historical connotations that I think don’t apply here. As I said I think its a term coined for rhetorical effect rather than to actually tell us what we are fighting.
Take the insurgents in Iraq they include:
Old-school Basthists: this is close to old time fascism-nationalistic, but with a socialists bent not common in most historical fascism
Sunni and Shia Militia: who knows what they want other than to dominate the country. The groups here run from apolitical (just wanting the perks of power), to tribal, to religious
Al-Qaeda: want a theocracy where all is subject to clerical control not necessarily the state. I recognize that in Islam the state and religion are intertwined, but the real issue is who makes the final call. In most fascist states of the 30s religion was co-opted to serve the state. AQ would not allow that.
Iranians in Iraq: real-politick. Expansion of power in the region for strategic, economic, and reputational
reasons.
Criminals: Not so much suicide bombers, but appear to be the prime culprits in the constant attacks on oil pipelines. Reason: the smuggle gas and oil into the country to sell on the black market
“Islamofascist” just fails to convey the true nature of any of these groups (except perhaps the Baathists) and over-simplifies the situation we face.