In the post Paris attack period the GOP is returning to the old meme that to fight ISIS you have to say 'Islamic terrorism'-somehow saying 'Jihadic terrorsim' makes you weak.
http://www.vox.com/2015/11/16/9745334/obama-radical-islam-isis
This Vox explainer wasn't bad in giving the history of this linguistic skirmish. It is a Serious piece-in Krugman's sense-as it clearly doesn't want to take sides even though it's pretty clear what the better argument is.
George W. Bush too avoided making it a war against Islam. He did once in 2006 go along with the Right who wanted him to start saying radical Islam but after trying it once decided it offered little upside with the downside that it rankled many in the Muslim community.
The Vox piece describes Rubio response to Paris this way:
"And then there's Marco Rubio, who's now viewed by some savvy commentators as the likely GOP nominee. After the Paris attacks, Rubio released a video in which he argued that "what we're in now is a civilizational conflict with radical Islam." It is, he said a "clash of civilizations." Whether this is just campaign trail rhetoric, or Rubio's genuine belief, we don't yet know."
I have to laugh at that reference to 'savvy commentators.' These are the same folks who have told us that Trump and Carson are both just a flash in the pan.
Even worse, why would we just assume this isn't Rubio's general belief? Why would you go so far as to give him the benefit of the doubt here? Sure, let's roll the dice-maybe he doesn't mean all that talk about a battle of civilizations.
http://www.vox.com/2015/11/16/9745334/obama-radical-islam-isis
This Vox explainer wasn't bad in giving the history of this linguistic skirmish. It is a Serious piece-in Krugman's sense-as it clearly doesn't want to take sides even though it's pretty clear what the better argument is.
George W. Bush too avoided making it a war against Islam. He did once in 2006 go along with the Right who wanted him to start saying radical Islam but after trying it once decided it offered little upside with the downside that it rankled many in the Muslim community.
The Vox piece describes Rubio response to Paris this way:
"And then there's Marco Rubio, who's now viewed by some savvy commentators as the likely GOP nominee. After the Paris attacks, Rubio released a video in which he argued that "what we're in now is a civilizational conflict with radical Islam." It is, he said a "clash of civilizations." Whether this is just campaign trail rhetoric, or Rubio's genuine belief, we don't yet know."
I have to laugh at that reference to 'savvy commentators.' These are the same folks who have told us that Trump and Carson are both just a flash in the pan.
Even worse, why would we just assume this isn't Rubio's general belief? Why would you go so far as to give him the benefit of the doubt here? Sure, let's roll the dice-maybe he doesn't mean all that talk about a battle of civilizations.
He has gone further than even this-he compares Muslims to Nazis.
"Marco Rubio appeared on This Week yesterday morning, where he took umbrage at Hillary Clinton’s statement that the United States is “at war with jihadists” but not “at war with Islam.” Rubio declared himself baffled by Clinton’s carefully parsed distinctions. “I don't understand it,” said Rubio. “That would be like saying we weren't at war with the Nazis, because we were afraid to offend some Germans who may have been members of the Nazi Party, but weren't violent themselves.” If we tease out Rubio’s metaphor, the Muslim faith as a whole is equivalent to Nazism, and violent jihadi terrorists are the equivalent of the Nazi leadership. Rubio has a knack for grasping the midpoint of Republican Party doctrine at any given moment, and his comments reflect the party’s renewed conviction that the war against terrorists must be defined in the broadest possible terms.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/11/return-of-republican-islamophobia.html#
Compare with Rubio Secretary of State John Kerry's words in a surprise visit to Paris yesterday. The Secretary said ISIS is not about a war between civilisations but a war against civilization itself. He also said the US would show compassion to Syrian refugees.
In a speech on Monday at the U.S. embassy in Paris, Kerry dismissed the notion that the battle against ISIS was a clash of civilizations. “They are in fact psychopathic monsters,” he said. “There’s nothing civilized about them.”
http://time.com/4115823/paris-attacks-john-kerry-isis-terrorism/
"Marco Rubio appeared on This Week yesterday morning, where he took umbrage at Hillary Clinton’s statement that the United States is “at war with jihadists” but not “at war with Islam.” Rubio declared himself baffled by Clinton’s carefully parsed distinctions. “I don't understand it,” said Rubio. “That would be like saying we weren't at war with the Nazis, because we were afraid to offend some Germans who may have been members of the Nazi Party, but weren't violent themselves.” If we tease out Rubio’s metaphor, the Muslim faith as a whole is equivalent to Nazism, and violent jihadi terrorists are the equivalent of the Nazi leadership. Rubio has a knack for grasping the midpoint of Republican Party doctrine at any given moment, and his comments reflect the party’s renewed conviction that the war against terrorists must be defined in the broadest possible terms.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/11/return-of-republican-islamophobia.html#
Compare with Rubio Secretary of State John Kerry's words in a surprise visit to Paris yesterday. The Secretary said ISIS is not about a war between civilisations but a war against civilization itself. He also said the US would show compassion to Syrian refugees.
In a speech on Monday at the U.S. embassy in Paris, Kerry dismissed the notion that the battle against ISIS was a clash of civilizations. “They are in fact psychopathic monsters,” he said. “There’s nothing civilized about them.”
http://time.com/4115823/paris-attacks-john-kerry-isis-terrorism/
No comments:
Post a Comment