news & archives
the abuse of islam in political rhetoric : a deconstruction
|This is the seventh in a series of documents that analyse manipulative writing techniques used by reporters, and others, in order to promote their own political agendas.|
This one of the worst pieces of pseudo-intellectualism I’ve seen in weeks. It has so many errors of reasoning that it would take a small book to cover them all. And yet this passes for education at the lower end in the States.
Would they? What a surprise!
Here is the usual socialistic attempt to equate the disgraceful illegitimate dictatorships of the Middle East with legitimate democracies.
It is constantly amazing the way the jihadi apologists use a mirror language of marxist socialism to strip language of meaning as a constant precursor to their dishonest rhetoric.
They are not “supposedly” anything; neither are they just “militants”. They are attempting to promote islamo-fascism by violence.
Where are the churches and cathedrals in the Middle East?
It is not the place of “Anglo-American politicians” to define Islam. It is the place of islamics to do that. Meanwhile, I see no problem with referring to islamo-fascists. We need a label for the murderers, the gang leaders and their apologists. Islamo-fascists will do for the moment, with or without the permission of supposed islamics steeped in marxism.
The real objective of this sort of evasive tosh is to make it impossible to discuss the problems with islamo-fascism and how to deal with them. This very same game I see in the pseudo-intellectual maunderings of marxists and socialists everywhere. For example, misguided attempts to claim “everyone and every government is socialist” are used as a means of confusing and inhibiting discussion on the evils of socialism.
And now the babbler attempts to claim all muslims come under the heading of islamo-fascists. I wonder why he would do that!
It isn’t “abusive”. It is descriptive, and it does not involve “Islam’ unless Islam does not put its house in order. The jihadis are trying to shelter in a grey world between nationalism and cult loyalties. Better they decide which rather than keep switching rhetoric to the reverse in order to evade any meaningful discussion.
Where is “Islam”? Is it Iran or Saudi? Or is it some international cult? Where is the cult leader? Is he in Rome or Peking? Who is responsible? Nobody? Everybody calling themselves “muslim”?
Here you see them, now you don’t. Shame about the Twin Towers - not my fault, gov.
Can’t be helped. “We” don’t like your foreign policy.
Just because almost all the serious nuisance is perpetrated by “muslims” doesn’t mean you can complain about Islam or muslims. “You’re just over-generalising. Ain’t me gov!”
I have yet to hear any priests promoting pedos. Again the dishonest attempts at false analogies. Again, the surreptitious attempts to destroy meaning in language.
Is this a threat? Why would it be “unwise” to talk of Islamo-fascism? That after all is what we are dealing with.
So, it’s about money then?
Note the blanket bombing. Note the constant movement from one weak argument to another in the hope that each false argument can be lost in the midst of the rickety tirade. Never leave time to analyse any part of the pseudo-arguments, just rush on piling nonsense upon nonsense. The very same techniques can be seen in the likes of Chumpsky. How much of this article is about Islamo-fascism, or ‘religion’? And how much of it is just marxist socialism in a new package?
Ah yes, never forget to slip the Jooooooze in.
So who is bribing politicians around the world with oil money and threats of oil restriction?
Who is threatening politicians with claims on European foreign policy?
Where is the evidence for this dippy claim?
The article looks more like “abusive rhetoric against the West”.
Ah yes, now the irrelevant appeal to history by the writer to justify the feelthy dictatorships of the middle East, and the constant apologists for them and their murderous allies.
Ah, you mean those people you just claimed were ‘easily sacrificed and trashed’?
Do you mean Sharia by any chance? Or do you mean the laws being introduced to confront Islamo-fascism perhaps?
You could have fooled me, especially after the intemperate and aggressive tirade against the West i have just had the joy of reading. I’ll be more interested when islamo-fascists and their apologists start working with Western governments to introduce democracy to the Middle East, and towards opposing the terror groups and nuclear ambitions of Islamo-fascism.
I don't think I’ll bother. Too much of my time is taken up working out how to deal with Islamo-fascism. Perhaps the ‘professor’ would turn some of his attention to that, instead of attempting to convince that Islamo-fascism was scotch mist.
email abelard at abelard.org
©abelard.org, 29 november2006
the address for this document is http://www.abelard.org/news/deconstruction7.php
380 words (plus 165 words of quoted text)