Like millions of other Americans, I am stunned and vigilant after the events surrounding September 2009’s G20 Summit in Pittsburgh, PA. I am trying very hard not to jump to conclusions about any of the video clips I have watched, because I suppose part of me is yet hopeful that at least a few of these are staged by students or Anarchists to stir up trouble. However, when I see the overwhelming amount of video footage streaming in and I see what look to be police and military taking action covertly with one another and in some cases right in the open, I am not put at ease. Not everything could be ’staged’ for our eyes. In fact, I’m wondering why the President of the United States is not immediately demanding answers from his Chiefs of Staff and discussing the Posse Comitatus Act.
William Caldwell isn’t going to insult my intelligence and get away with it. The Emory Wheel published the following article from Robert Spencer this morning:
In “Jihad Means Much More Than Violence” (Feb. 16), Will Caldwell objects to the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s ad, “What Americans Need to Know About Jihad,” as “propaganda,” and calls for it to be censored. He asserts that “most in our community are educated enough to understand that statements like ‘The goal of jihad is world domination’ are completely ignorant and intentionally provocative.”
Daniel Pipes again has some insights that are worth reposting here:
After defeating fascists and communists, can the West now defeat the Islamists?
On the face of it, its military preponderance makes victory seem inevitable. Even if Tehran acquires a nuclear weapon, Islamists have nothing like the military machine the Axis deployed in World War II, nor the Soviet Union during the cold war. What do the Islamists have to compare with the Wehrmacht or the Red Army? The SS or Spetznaz? The Gestapo or the KGB? Or, for that matter, to Auschwitz or the gulag?
Published by Foehammer 5 years, 9 months ago
in Islamofascism, Books and Terms & Definitions.
What good are definitons? Here you go, about the best I’ve seen; a definition from a New York Times review of the new book The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert O. Paxton — the author’s definition of fascism. The words are chilling, and you’re about to see why :
“A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditonal elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”
Podcasts Archive
