Wondering why you weren’t invited to this terrorism conference?
Probably because you’re too controversial.
One, I’m not a mainstream name or expert on the subject, and two, my views are too radical, i.e., I speak the truth about Islam. Frank (“Islamo-fascism”) Gaffney, one of the scheduled speakers at the conference, who cut me off and walked away from me when I tried to speak with him after the screening of his movie, would certainly not attend a conference where I was also invited to speak.
- end of initial entry -
At the same time, I would have trouble taking seriously this group, America’s Truth Forum, based on the title of the conference: “Understanding the Threat of Radical Islamist Terrorism.” “Islamism” is a synonym for radical Islam. The word was coined by Westerners who don’t want to criticize Islam itself, so they make up something called Islamism. Ok, that’s bad enough. But when they take the word Islamism, which already means “radical Islam,” and change it to radical Islamism, then you realize you’re dealing with people who do not think about the meaning of the words they’re using, and who will keep coming up with more and more absurd euphemisms to avoid saying anything truthful and critical about Islam.
Terry M. writes:
“…and who will keep coming up with more and more absurd euphemisms to avoid saying anything truthful and critical about Islam.”
Yeah, piling qualifier upon qualifier: “extreme right-wing fascist radical Islamism.” lol
Ha ha. Exactly!
Or how about “radical Islamofascism”!
Also, here’s something I didn’t make clear before: The more adjectives are added on, the more extreme some Islamic belief must be in order to be seen as a problem by us. Thus if the problem is, as the conference title suggests, radical Islamism, that means that plain old Islamism is now ok! Islamism is only bad if it’s radical Islamism. Or, if the problem is “extreme radical Islamism,” then radical Islamism is ok.
While this is funny, it’s not a joke, because, as we’ve seen, our leaders and opinionmakers keep raising the threshold of what is required of some Islamic phenomenon to be seen as bad. Thus sharia is now seen as ok if it’s not promoted by or connected with terrorism. Examples: the U.S. government supported the sharia Constitution of Iraq, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali says she has no problem with sharia being promoted in the West so long as it’s done by democratic means.
When people see some conservative commentator speak of “radical Islamism,” they should write to him and ask: “You used to oppose Islamism. Is it now your position that Islamism is ok, and that we are only opposing radical Islamism?” Or ask the commentator, “Could you explain to me the difference between Islamism and radical Islamism?”
Sadly, I’ll bet that nine times out of ten you’ll get no answer. Today’s “conservatives” don’t care if the words they use make sense or not. They have no interest in thinking. They are members of a team. That’s all that matters to them.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 15, 2007 12:28 PM | Send