Muslims bristle at Bush term "Islamic fascists"

[Oraphus]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060810/us_nm/security_usa_muslims_dc\

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Muslim groups criticized President Bush on Thursday for calling a foiled plot to blow up airplanes part of a "war with Islamic fascists," saying the term could inflame anti-Muslim tensions.
"We believe this is an ill-advised term and we believe that it is counterproductive to associate Islam or Muslims with fascism," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations advocacy group.
"We ought to take advantage of these incidents to make sure that we do not start a religious war against Islam and Muslims," he told a news conference in Washington.
"We urge him (Bush) and we urge other public officials to restrain themselves.

This is pretty funny to me as i believe the term is right on. Kind of like the term "German fascism" could spark anti - German tensions. :rolleyes:
" we believe that it is counterproductive to associate Islam or Muslims with fascism"
Counter productive for who? It's true isn't it? Just calling the kettle black. next thing they'll be saying it wasn’t really a terrorist plot.. more like a misunderstood freedom fighter led astray.

[Ky-Fi]

FINALLY, after 5 years, Bush says it. Maybe that's a start.

[General Zod]

I agree "Islamic fascists" was the wrong term. "Islamic Bastards!" would be the better term. (yes, i'm kidding)

Actually i'd prefer if he stuck with "Radical Islam" as it just seems to sum it up quite well.

[Thor Simpson]

At least he didn't say Radical Islamic Pigs.

[Breakfast with Girls]

"Islamic meanies"

[M2theAX]

Bush is an idiot, so anything he says doesn't make sense.

[Cardiff Giant11]

Just calling the cattle black.
don't you mean kettle?

I agree though and Bush does love trying to stir up emotion by using WWII analogies. Nice to see him let loose a little.

[Nutter]

Actually, one of the key characteristics of fascism is the opposition to anarchy, which hardly fits.

[Mopower]

Bush is an idiot, so anything he says doesn't make sense.


Now that's what I call "pot calling the kettle black".

[nemein]

"We urge him (Bush) and we urge other public officials to restrain themselves.

So what alternative term do they propose people start to use?

[OldDude]

Actually, one of the key characteristics of fascism is the opposition to anarchy, which hardly fits.

Don't worry, they don't want anarchy, that is only a means. If they win, they will impose an autocratic, theocratic, extremely oppressive form of government which will deny most rights to nearly everyone. (Was the Taliban in favor of anarchy?)

[adamblast]

So what alternative term do they propose people start to use?Purely coincidentally Muslim terrorists.

[Ky-Fi]

Actually, one of the key characteristics of fascism is the opposition to anarchy, which hardly fits.

Fundamentalist Islam is anything but anarchy. It has very clearly delineated rules for every aspect of society---military, social, political, legal, etc. You think those guys would be unable to mount theological and religious defenses for their behavior?

[nemein]

Purely coincidentally Muslim terrorists.

PuC'MuTs :scratch2: Sounds kind of Klingon to me, but then again I just finished watching the Klingon fan set so maybe that explains it ;)

[ukywyldcat]

"We ought to take advantage of these incidents to make sure that we do not start a religious war against Islam and Muslims," he told a news conference in Washington.

Um. The Muslim world sees this as a religious war. If that is what it is to them, and they are the ones aggressively attacking, then it is a religious war, no matter how many media outlets and democrat politicans say it isn't.

[nemein]

Actually, one of the key characteristics of fascism is the opposition to anarchy, which hardly fits.

As others have mentioned I'm not sure where you're getting the they want anarchy bit from? They are using violence as a means to an end not looking for violence as the end of the means.

[Nesbit]

I had never really thought about it before today but all of the "Radicals", "Insurgents", and, "Terrorists" that have been trying to blow us up lately are Islamics. Fuck Islam!

[nemein]

Fuck Islam!

IMHO that's another of the reactions these people are going for so they can say "See we told you, the west hates Muslims".

[General Zod]

IMHO that's another of the reactions these people are going for so they can say "See we told you, the west hates Muslims".
And Muslims hate the west.. so why can't we all be honest about it?

[ukywyldcat]

"See we told you, the west hates Muslims".

The more the Islamic world produces terrorists, the more Americans are going to hate Islam.

[ukywyldcat]

And Muslims hate the west.. so why can't we all be honest about it?

tru dat.

[Ky-Fi]

The more the Islamic world produces terrorists, the more Americans are going to hate Islam.

Or to say it a bit differently, I would say the US is at war with Islam to the degree that Islam supports Islamofascism. So it's kind of up to mainstream Islam to decide that, really.

[nemein]

The more the Islamic world produces terrorists, the more Americans are going to hate Islam.

Is it Islam they hate or the culture/way it is practiced in those parts of the world? Is there a difference? I mean if these were Christian people who were doing this would we start to hate Christianity (although I suspect some would, or would even more but that's another thread)? So is it what they call themselves or what they do that we hate? I agree labels are important in keepings things distinct, I think what I'm getting at (and what I think the people in the OP are getting at) is some new term is needed to describe these people. It would have been nice if the Muslim community had offered it up so that it can start to make a greater distinction between itself and these people (something that I don't think there is enough of, atleast that we hear), but given the "structure" of the Muslim faith it's not surprising.

[nodeerforamonth]

Why would they be mad at the use of that term? He didn't say that all muslims are facists. He said "Islamic Facists". That is a subsection of those muslims that are basically facists.

[OldDude]

Why would they be mad at the use of that term? He didn't say that all muslims are facists. He said "Islamic Facists". That is a subsection of those muslims that are basically facists.

It gives them something to bristle about while ignoring the aspirations of a bunch of their own to be mass murderers, aka freedom fighters. By being pissed at Bush's words, they can safely ignore that.

[Ky-Fi]

Is it Islam they hate or the culture/way it is practiced in those parts of the world? Is there a difference? I mean if these were Christian people who were doing this would we start to hate Christianity (although I suspect some would, or would even more but that's another thread)?

Here's my main criticism of Islam. Martin Luther, who led the Protestant reformation, was a VILE anti-semite. But the Lutheran Church has since officially disavowed themselves from that aspect of his teachings, denouncing it as incompatible with the Christian message. Similarly, Christianity was used to justify slavery during the beginnings of this country, but other Christians LED the abolitionist movement. The Catholic Church has issued official proclamations disavowing past abuses (anti-semitism, etc)---and failure to publicly adhere to those will get priests thrown out of the church. Martin Luther King Jr. was a reverend, and fought against Christian bigots from within the religion.

You do hear a lot of moderate Muslims now saying that terrorists are not "true muslims", but I don't think it goes much further than that. I don't believe the majority of mainstream Islamic clerics and religious officials---people with real religious influence, are really, OFFICIALLY coming out against the jihadis. And although I'm no expert, from what I've read, Islamic religious scholarship over the centuries has largely interpreted the scripture to endorse many of these acts that in the west are deemed extreme and violent.

[nemein]

From what I understand though that is the major difference/problem in comparing the situations. Even though there are distinct synods/"variations" of the Lutheran Church around the world for the most part congregations belong to one of these bodies and as a whole they make decisions about issues that face the church. The Catholic church obviously takes this to the extreme and pretty much everything is centralized in Rome. For the Muslims though it's my understanding each mosque is essentially on it's own. They may associate themsevles w/ one of the major teachings/sects but there's really no monastaries/seminaries centralization beyond the local Iman. That's what's so frustrating in the situation described in the OP since here we have an organization that has taken the time to set up a structure beyond the local mosque (although I'm not sure if the organization was founded for religious or legal purposes and that could make all the difference) and they are complaining w/o offering solutions -ohbfrank-

I agree though, and it's a shame, if things continue like they are this will all eventually turn into a world wide culture war w/ "Muslims" on one side and the "west" on the other :(

[Red Dog]

Why would they be mad at the use of that term? He didn't say that all muslims are facists. He said "Islamic Facists". That is a subsection of those muslims that are basically facists.


Yeah, I don't see a problem with his use of the term to describe those who seek to kill and bring harm to the West. It is accurate and if some Muslims can't understand that it refers to a subset of the whole, then they need to get thicker skin and deal with it.

[Bushdog]

In defense of Muslims, it isn't like all Muslims said this. Let's not do what the complainers are doing and make blanket assumptions.

IMO most groups/ethnicities will have some organization screaming and crying any time someone farts in their general direction.

[DVD Polizei]

Whatever the fuck they are, I hope once found guilty, they are shot in front of an English firing squad. Then double-tapped at close range. Then left outside for 30 days.

[DVD Polizei]

In defense of Muslims, it isn't like all Muslims said this. Let's not do what the complainers are doing and make blanket assumptions.

IMO most groups/ethnicities will have some organization screaming and crying any time someone farts in their general direction.

True. The ones being silent are just in agreement with the ones voicing their opinions. :)

[VinVega]

Definition

1.often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Under Sharia law, the dictator would be a religious figure, but in essence, he would still be a dictator. They certainly would suppress the opposition (political or religious) with terror and censorship. See Taliban Afghanistan. I don't know about nationalism and racism so much, but maybe religious nationalism and racism against any other religion.

It's a pretty biting way of defining them, but it's not that far off the mark actually. If this causes pain for the Muslim community, please explain how it's incorrect. Islamic fascists doesn't refer to Muslims who want to live under secular democracy. It refers to nut jobs who want theocracies, but perhaps that gets to the root of the problem because so many in the ME want exactly that.

[Tommy Ceez]

Actually, one of the key characteristics of fascism is the opposition to anarchy, which hardly fits.
Wait, arent islamic Theocracies pretty regulated?

[B.A.]

Whatever the fuck they are, I hope once found guilty, they are shot in front of an English firing squad. Then double-tapped at close range. Then left outside for 30 days.
Then send their heads/arms/legs to the corners of the UK as warning.

[resinrats]

Is it Islam they hate or the culture/way it is practiced in those parts of the world? Is there a difference?

I don't think Americans have anything against Islam practiced by people that live normal lives and aren't out to kill all non-Muslims. (although all the athiests on this board probably hate them with a vengence for having a religion) What Americans have issues with is the nut-jobs who think that if someone doesn't practive Islam, they need to die.

It also doesn't help Islam's image that whenever Islam is in the news, it is about terrorists,

[Dave7393]

I honestly think Bush, with his continued extraordinary command of English vocabulary and language in general, simply equated "fascists" with "bad guys" (as in, "the Nazis were really bad guys, and these evil-doing Islamists are bad buys too. Bunch of Fascists"). I don't think Bush thought too deeply about his choice of words, nor do I think he could probably give a decent definition of "fascism" if asked on the spot. I think with all the possible words he could've used, his choice was awkward-- nothing new.

[wishbone]

If you were to talk to cross-section of Christians about the KKK or white power movement I doubt you would hear them saying that these groups have valid points even though they do not agree with the ideology of hate that they spew and that it does not represent "true" Christianity.

During the London bombings, many Muslims were outraged that innocent Muslims were killed -- "How could Muslims kill other Muslims?!" People of other faiths were outraged at the loss of life across all spectrums, not just people of their own faith or nationality. If the majority of Muslims do not wish to be painted with the brush of extremism then they have it within their power to condone these acts and isolate their faith against the jihadists, just as most Christians have distanced themselves from "radical" Christianity.

If Islam is peace then it is time for it to clean its own house.

[Mopower]

I honestly think Bush, with his continued extraordinary command of English vocabulary and language in general, simply equated "fascists" with "bad guys" (as in, "the Nazis were really bad guys, and these evil-doing Islamists are bad buys too. Bunch of Fascists"). I don't think Bush thought too deeply about his choice of words, nor do I think he could probably give a decent definition of "fascism" if asked on the spot. I think with all the possible words he could've used, his choice was awkward-- nothing new.


Definition

1.often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.



Hmmm, sounds like exactly what Islamic extremists are striving for.

[mike7162]

I would love to see these "moderate, peace loving" Muslims bristle at the PR hit their religion has taken from it's own over the past few decades.

In response to resinrats - I'm an Atheist and I don't hate anyone. It troubles me that Athiests are given such a hard time about being 'godless' when people are flying planes into buildings while screaming god's name, shooting up abortion clinics or gay bars in the name of god, killing their children because god told them to, or denying rights to it's nation's citizens because of the mandate of some 'holy' text. What was the last act of violence, radical or otherwise, by an athiest that you've read about in the newspaper? You could argue that the acts perpetrated by terrorists are actually the deeds of godless people perverting a religion, but to me they're all too religious.

[Bushdog]

I fail to see how the goals of the Islamic extremists could be termed as anything other than fascism.

They want a central religious authority, fraught with a number of oppressive rules, and have a policy of beligerent theocracy.

[Ky-Fi]

What was the last act of violence, radical or otherwise, by an athiest that you've read about in the newspaper?

Not to nitpick here, but you had countless millions murderered in just the last century by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. If you want to argue that religion has caused lots of suffering over the centuries, I can't argue with you. If you want to argue that man would be better if he threw off those old shackles of religion and embarked on a religion-free "rational" socio-political philosphy--thanks, but no thanks.

[elperdido]

I had never really thought about it before today but all of the "Radicals", "Insurgents", and, "Terrorists" that have been trying to blow us up lately are Islamics. Fuck Islam!

Fuck Islam!

For centuries, the catholic church oppressed the poor while it amassed innumerable riches. Hundreds of thousands if not millions died because of it. So I guess we should also say "Fuck Catholicism". For a while in there we were getting hit by our own, Postal workers, Unabomber, Oklahoma.... should we say "Fuck my neighbor"? Your way of thinking got thousands of Japanese Americans in concentration camps in WWII. We are at war with Japan? "Fuck Americans of Japanese descent".
Islam, by itself has nothing to do with the radicals that have attacked us in the past and to the best of my knowledge it has nothing to do with those trying to harm us now. I assume . I have not read enough to say it first hand but I have listened to many that claim the Koran does not preach violence. But, regardless of that, I think you are out of order when you say "Fuck Islam!". Just to mention the Muslims in this country, they are compromised of mainly South Asian and African Americans. Arabs are the third group percentage wise, and I assume you were referring to those when making the mindless remark.

To conclude, I thought attacks/insults like “Fuck Islam” were highly discouraged in this forum.

[Dave7393]

Hmmm, sounds like exactly what Islamic extremists are striving for.

So do you think that Bush's remark was actually an insightful revelation? If this characterization is that accurate (if it's "exactly what Islamic extremists are striving for"), then why didn't he use this characterization earlier? My point was that he's used "crusade," "evil-doers," etc, so he doesn't exactly have a history of picking the best possible word at times. We'll see if he uses it again.

[Birrman54]

This definately isn't the first time I've heard "islamofacists" said before. Nobody said it was insightful or revolutionary, but it is accurate.

[darkessenz]

Its kind of silly they are whining about this, when they should be doing their best to explain & distance themselves from a bunch of people who just tried to murder thousands...

[mike7162]

Not to nitpick here, but you had countless millions murderered in just the last century by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. If you want to argue that religion has caused lots of suffering over the centuries, I can't argue with you. If you want to argue that man would be better if he threw off those old shackles of religion and embarked on a religion-free "rational" socio-political philosphy--thanks, but no thanks.


Your point is well taken, Ky-Fi. There's no shortage of evil on either side. I have no problem with religion, really, but I don't think their actions of the aforementioned dictators were the product of their lack of religion, as in a predetermined end game. Atheism doesn't teach a point-by-point doctrine (I haven't really looked that deeply into it; actually, I find the concept of "Atheism" as a credo rather silly and prefer to refer to myself as religion-free), but as far as I know religious-free people for the most part have no interest in the suppresion of any freedoms, or follow an apocolyptic directive.

[Giantrobo]

This is stupid. I think Bush went out of his way to specifically seperate this "problem area" from the rest of Islam. And still people bitch.

[VinVega]

So do you think that Bush's remark was actually an insightful revelation? If this characterization is that accurate (if it's "exactly what Islamic extremists are striving for"), then why didn't he use this characterization earlier? My point was that he's used "crusade," "evil-doers," etc, so he doesn't exactly have a history of picking the best possible word at times. We'll see if he uses it again.
Islamofascists is a term that's bandied about by Conservative media outlets. I'm sure since it's a mainstream word among Conservatives that it has seeped into the language of the White House. Obviously how you speak and present yourself has a huge effect on your image. The Muslim leaders in the west are aware of that and both sides are fighting their own little PR war. The White House certainly understood that they were using the word and it's no coincidence that they decided to use it for whatever effect they thought they could get from it. My point is that it's not inaccurate if you use it in the context of the people who are trying to kill us.

[OldDude]

I don't think Americans have anything against Islam practiced by people that live normal lives and aren't out to kill all non-Muslims. (although all the athiests on this board probably hate them with a vengence for having a religion) What Americans have issues with is the nut-jobs who think that if someone doesn't practive Islam, they need to die.

It also doesn't help Islam's image that whenever Islam is in the news, it is about terrorists,

Atheists really don't object to other people practising their religion, only imposing it.

Now we are quite sensitive to that, and public prayers, crosses on government property, Jehovah's Witnesses on our doorstep, "under God" in the pledge, etc., are the very light gray beginning of a gray area of compulsion that turns to black with Islamofascists with weapons screaming "convert or die."

[maxfisher]

Let's just start saying 'Muslims', as in 'A group of Muslims were planning to blow up 10 planes and kill thousands of people.' I'm sure that's how the terrorists in question would identify themselves. If 'mainstream' Muslims don't like the way we try to make semantic distinctions, let's just stop making them. Then maybe they'll start putting the blame on their brothers who are besmirching their peace-loving, live-and-let-live religion.

[Tracer Bullet]

Not to nitpick here, but you had countless millions murderered in just the last century by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. If you want to argue that religion has caused lots of suffering over the centuries, I can't argue with you. If you want to argue that man would be better if he threw off those old shackles of religion and embarked on a religion-free "rational" socio-political philosphy--thanks, but no thanks.

Sure, but were they doing that in the name of atheism? Was their atheism a cause of their genocidal activities?

[DVD Polizei]

Then send their heads/arms/legs to the corners of the UK as warning.

Or start a new Gitmo, where people are actually charged with a crime and convicted.

[Mopower]

So do you think that Bush's remark was actually an insightful revelation? If this characterization is that accurate (if it's "exactly what Islamic extremists are striving for"), then why didn't he use this characterization earlier? My point was that he's used "crusade," "evil-doers," etc, so he doesn't exactly have a history of picking the best possible word at times. We'll see if he uses it again.


I don't listen to every speech Bush makes. I have a job and a life. But it isn't the first time I have heard the term "Islamic Fascism". Bush uses terms like "evil doers" because people understand the term evil doer. I'm sure there's a sizable percentage of Bush voters that don't even know what "Fascism" means.

[wendersfan]

As a white man, I have to wonder if this means I should be offended by the term 'white supremacist'. I'm not.

[Breakfast with Girls]

(although all the athiests on this board probably hate them with a vengence for having a religion)Cute.

[Bushdog]

For centuries, the catholic church oppressed the poor while it amassed innumerable riches. Hundreds of thousands if not millions died because of it. So I guess we should also say "Fuck Catholicism".

You don't think there is a healthy opposition and disagreement with Catholicism?

For a while in there we were getting hit by our own, Postal workers, Unabomber, Oklahoma.... should we say "Fuck my neighbor"? No, why be so heavyhanded? Fuck an anti-technology extremeist and fuck a racist.

Your way of thinking got thousands of Japanese Americans in concentration camps in WWII. We are at war with Japan? "Fuck Americans of Japanese descent".

A dark period of American history, agreed. Not sure it holds up to the analogy you are making.

Islam, by itself has nothing to do with the radicals that have attacked us in the past and to the best of my knowledge it has nothing to do with those trying to harm us now.And it is at this point where, despite your opinion otherwise, there is a healthy disagreement.

For many there is a perponderance of evidence that Islam is a religion of intolerance. Both in acts and in religious citations.

And your reference to South Asians and Blacks as a way to disprove the violence of Islam really does nothing to make that point. There are multiple instances of violence and murder in the name of Islam among these communities (look at the unimaginable bloodshed in Africa). Nation of Islam/Black Islamic movements have a history of violence.

In Iran, the majority of people are not Arab. The problem to some (me included) has nothing to do with a race or ethnicity of Arabs but specifically has to do with a belief system of intolerance, violence and subjugation.

I have not read enough to say it first hand but I have listened to many that claim the Koran does not preach violence. Have you never heard people claim otherwise, too? Ask yourself why you choose to believe one version versus another? Would it surprise you if you found out that Islam really did preach violence?

But, regardless of that, I think you are out of order when you say "Fuck Islam!". Just to mention the Muslims in this country, they are compromised of mainly South Asian and African Americans. Arabs are the third group percentage wise, and I assume you were referring to those when making the mindless remark.And he thinks he's "in order" to make those comments.

I certainly feel justified in my criticism of a religion that seems to either directly promote or easily be perverted to foment hatred, violence and death.

To conclude, I thought attacks/insults like “Fuck Islam” were highly discouraged in this forum.
FWIW, this I strongly agree with. I thought the comment was surprising, inflammatory and in bad taste. There's a more thoughtful way to say the same thing.

[Breakfast with Girls]

Islam, by itself has nothing to do with the radicals that have attacked us in the past and to the best of my knowledge it has nothing to do with those trying to harm us now.You must be joking.

I assume . I have not read enough to say it first hand but I have listened to many that claim the Koran does not preach violence.Of course it preaches violence. Where else do you think they get their beliefs? It also preaches peace. It's self-contradictory, like all religious texts.

[Bushdog]

I love how the same guy, in an environment of limited evidence (and lack of information on his part) is declaring Islam free of hatred and exonerates it from blame but also leaves the door open to the possibility that Israel staged the capture of its soldiers going so far as to try to shoot down the scads of articles I posted showing all of the different countries that accepted as fact that Hezbollah had started this conflict with the kidnapping and murder. Nope, not a drop of bias here. :lol:

And you wonder why so many Jews feel that opposition to Israel is oft founded in anti-semitism.

[Oraphus]

And you wonder why so many Jews feel that opposition to Israel is oft founded in anti-semitism.

no.. actually it's a 100% founded on anti-semitism. There are differen ways to show anti-semitism.. and hatred of Israel is the most socially accepted way at this time.

[Trout]

And Muslims hate the west..

...and the Jews...and the atheists...and the Hindus...and the Buddhists...and the Feminists...and the Gays...and the Commies...

[wendersfan]

no.. actually it's a 100% founded on anti-semitism. I completely disagree. One can oppose the existence of Israel, or oppose its policies, for purely political reasons that have nothing to do with Israel's status as a Jewish state. Could not one oppose the policies, or even the existence of, a sub-Saharan African state without being racist?

[Oraphus]

i was not talking about apposition to it's policies.. i meant opposition to Israel as a state.
And yes, if a person apposes the creation and existence of Israel as a state, 99.9% of the time it holds Anti-Semitic roots.

But even then, some countries hide behind the term "disagreement with policies" when in fact it's just an excuse to cover their true disposition.
I think we can all agree that 100% of the Arab world/countries disagree with Israeli policies and with Israel’s right to exist. Yet only about 40% state so out loud.

[elperdido]

What we have in here ladies and gentleman, is a clear case of Islamophobia. This is the first step before concentration camps a-la-japanese/american. Most people I know (myself included) hate muslim <b>fundamentalists</b>. To tell you the truth I dislike or hate most fundamentalists—Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Atheist….. I think they are a dangerous breed. Obviously, Islamic fundamentalism is the problem that we seem to have in the present. Yes it is a big problem. But hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide are not Islamic fundamentalists; they are just muslims with no ties to violence or terrorism. It seems that several members of the forum hate ALL muslims. They do not seem to see an analogy between the imprisonments of Americans of Japanese descent in WWII, but I wonder if they would oppose the imprisonment of Muslims in this country just because they are muslims. Or maybe you want to give them a chance to convert? If it is such a terrible thing, should we outlaw Islam? Should we place all muslims that do not abandon their religion in jail/camps? Execute them? Should we start reading on Muslim and Jew expulsions from European countries in the middle ages? If the problem is Islam….. what you do advocate doing?

[Bushdog]

i was not talking about apposition to it's policies.. i meant opposition to Israel as a state.
And yes, if a person apposes the creation and existence of Israel as a state, 99.9% of the time it holds Anti-Semitic roots.

But even then, some countries hide behind the term "disagreement with policies" when in fact it's just an excuse to cover their true disposition.
I think we can all agree that 100% of the Arab world/countries disagree with Israeli policies and with Israel’s right to exist. Yet only about 40% state so out loud.
Well, nuance is important. I was reading some website with "objective" articles slamming Israel and attacking the right to exist and as I read some more on the site, it also attacked the right for the U.S. and Canada to exist. That's a socialist "anti-imperialist" view, which I really do believe is not anti-semetic. Fucked up, yes. Anti-Semetic, nah.

Also I can honestly say that this conflict, and more specifically the overt anti-semitism that has reared its ugly head throughout the world is drawing me closer to Israel.* However I do not see me as a Jew being 100% tied to support for the political policies of Israel.

Similarly, let us not fall into the trap of saying that support for Israel = not being anti-semetic. For years some in the Christian right used support for Israel as a way around answering the question if they are anti-semetic or not. Fuck, if you really dislike Jews and oppose killing them what you want is for them to go to another country! :lol: Not to mention the biblical needs for a State of Israel.


*Interesting side note -- the argument is that actions against Islamo-fascists just breeds more bombers etc... Ok, be that as it is. But their actions appear to be creating more Zionists, as well. I've been reading articles and am happy to say I'm far more pro-Israel than I have been after all of this. If you needed proof that Israel is necessary, this war and the response to it has been more than enough.

[Bushdog]

Notice elperdido running away from criticism of his previous posts. Pay him no mind, he's creating a straw man opponent.

[VinVega]

Notice elperdido running away from criticism of his previous posts. Pay him no mind, he's creating a straw man opponent.
mod note - Addressing the poster instead of the idea leads to personal attacks and a tit for tat that we don't need around here. This really doesn't add to the discussion.

[NearysEpiphany]

mod note - Addressing the poster instead of the idea leads to personal attacks and a tit for tat that we don't need around here. This really doesn't add to the discussion.

Are you kidding? It adds immeasurably to the discussion. Exposing charlatans for what they are is important, no? Bushdog wrote an articulate, detailed, well thought out reply to elperdito and elperdito completely ignored it. He instead goes on about how we are all islamophobes. Bushdog called him on it.

We need more of that, not less.

[Oraphus]

What we have in here ladies and gentleman, is a clear case of Islamophobia. This is the first step before concentration camps a-la-japanese/american.
cmon..
yes,... way to compare a military conflict with a religious ideology. I am still failing to make a connection.. yet in your mind it seems to somehow make sense.

You're talking about a countries insecurity and a resulting mistake during a war and trying to compare it to animals w extremist ideology, strapping bombs to themselves and/ or trying to take out as many civilians as possible.

If the rational, non extremist, Muslims really want to separate themselves from these bastards, they should stand up and voice their disgust with what’s happening, even if god for bid, that would mean showing some support for countries like USA and Israel.

Yet all i see for the most part is blissful ignorance, at the very best…

[Bushdog]

mod note - Addressing the poster instead of the idea leads to personal attacks and a tit for tat that we don't need around here. This really doesn't add to the discussion.

I understand you're trying to do your job, and I like and respect you, but I cry hipocrisy here.

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=474155

I disagree. We should put our full faith in the rantings of our new member/troll. :)

Well he could at least link to his source. *cough cough* DRUDGE. ;)


So is it ok to call someone a troll? Can I have a clear definition? And defining someone's words as rantings?

elperdido made claims, I responded to him and exerted thought and restraint, his response was to respond to me at best circumspectly

...It seems that several members of the forum hate ALL muslims. They do not seem to see an analogy between the imprisonments of Americans of Japanese descent in WWII, but I wonder if they would oppose the imprisonment of Muslims in this country just because they are muslims. Or maybe you want to give them a chance to convert? If it is such a terrible thing, should we outlaw Islam? Should we place all muslims that do not abandon their religion in jail/camps? Execute them? Should we start reading on Muslim and Jew expulsions from European countries in the middle ages? If the problem is Islam….. what you do advocate doing?

I was one of (if not the only person) to address his analogy and say it didn't apply. He comes back making blanket statements and claiming and hinting at hateful thoughts possessed by "these posters."

This is the 2nd time I called elperdido's bluff and got my wrist slapped while others openly go at other posters. It makes me wonder if he's reporting these posts because he can't take the heat of criticism, or if instead there's some strange focus.

I'm fine with any rules that are consistently applied, and I faced no penalty here other than a polite warning/reminder, but other "violations" don't even merit that and in fact appear to merit encouragement.

Of course, I'm also fine with rules that aren't consistently applied as I don't really have any say, but I must cry foul in this instance. Sorry, and thanks for reading.

[VinVega]

Bushdog, read your email. Respond to me offline if you like. If anyone else wants to discuss the moderation of the site, send me an email or post it in feedback. We're not going to do this in this thread. End of story.

[Breakfast with Girls]

What we have in here ladies and gentleman, is a clear case of Islamophobia. This is the first step before concentration camps a-la-japanese/american. ... It seems that several members of the forum hate ALL muslims.Expert analysis. :lol:

[VinVega]

What we have in here ladies and gentleman, is a clear case of Islamophobia. This is the first step before concentration camps a-la-japanese/american. Most people I know (myself included) hate muslim <b>fundamentalists</b>. To tell you the truth I dislike or hate most fundamentalists—Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Atheist….. I think they are a dangerous breed. Obviously, Islamic fundamentalism is the problem that we seem to have in the present. Yes it is a big problem. But hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide are not Islamic fundamentalists; they are just muslims with no ties to violence or terrorism. It seems that several members of the forum hate ALL muslims. They do not seem to see an analogy between the imprisonments of Americans of Japanese descent in WWII, but I wonder if they would oppose the imprisonment of Muslims in this country just because they are muslims. Or maybe you want to give them a chance to convert? If it is such a terrible thing, should we outlaw Islam? Should we place all muslims that do not abandon their religion in jail/camps? Execute them? Should we start reading on Muslim and Jew expulsions from European countries in the middle ages? If the problem is Islam….. what you do advocate doing?
Personally, I think this analysis is over the top. A lot of people here in the US are extremely frustrated with the Muslim community in the Middle East. They don't really try to stop people who want to slaughter innocent civilians. Many of them favor Islamic theocracies for their government, something as bad, if not worse than what we had in the Soviet Union. It's very hard for the Western mind to comprehend why you would directly target innocent civilians when they can do nothing to help you with your gripes against their government. The fact that there is not a loud voice coming from Muslim countries speaking out against this speaks volumes. Countries with a high proportion of Madrassas are some of the worst for perpetuating the terrorist mentality. We're lucky Pakistan helped us out on this one. They are teetering on the brink of a theocracy, just like Egypt and a few other countries.

[GreenMonkey]

Not another thread full of people insisting on blanket statements about ALL muslims again, or blanket statements about Islam being a violent and evil religion, or whatever :rolleyes: BOOORING.

Please, take the "Islam is an evil religion" generalizations to another thread. Does every thread involving Islam have to turn into that?

I don't have a problem with the term Islamic Fascists. I don't like the tendency to call all terrorist-types Islamo-fascists, though. That doesn't seem accurate, but just a buzzword being beaten to death. I would say this term applies to Islamic folks that want to run their country with the iron fist of fascism & religion. That doesn't mean they want to kill americans.

[Ky-Fi]

Not another thread full of people insisting on blanket statements about ALL muslims again, or blanket statements about Islam being a violent and evil religion, or whatever :rolleyes: BOOORING.



Yep, the head-in-the-sand political correctness like this is what rules in Europe right now, and in my opinion, this is exactly the attitude which will lead to horrendous violence and chaos, and REAL racially-motivated atrocities on an a gigantic scale.

When the centrists/leftists in power are too frightened or afraid of offending to actually consider the posibility that Islam itself plays a major role in the Muslim violence, then that will only empower those on the far right prone to real violence. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that Islam itself is a problem, and it's going to be much better for the west to engage in this debate and deal with it within the framework of the modern liberal democracies than it is to let things spiral out of control. The concentration camps and ethnic cleansing doesn't come from moderate governments, it comes when moderate governments have fallen because they've failed to deal with problems through peaceful methods.

Interesting piece from a Norwegian blogger on the possible futures of Europe:

http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/11/online-workshop-part-2-can-eurabia.html


Online Workshop Part 2: Can Eurabia Still be Averted?

Historian Bat Ye'or, who first coined the term "Eurabia", thinks that Europe's ties with the Arab-Islamic world are now so firmly entrenched and established that Eurabia is an irreversible fact. Europe will cease to be a Western, democratic continent, and will become an appendix to the Arab world, a civilization of dhimmitude employed to spread Jihad and further the cause of Islam on a global basis, while the original, non-Muslim population are held hostage in their own countries out of fear of Muslim violence. Do you think this is true, or can Eurabia still be reversed and Europe salvaged?

I must admit there are certain parts of Europe that do seem to be beyond hope, or very close to it. ALL of the largest Dutch cities are projected to have a Muslim majority within a generation, as will several English, French, Belgian, Scandinavian and Spanish cities. I forsee several possible scenarios:

1. Eurabia.

The EU continues its transformation into a continent-wide organization with clear totalitarian leanings, and a very pro-Islamic stance. Europe's fate is sealed when Turkey is allowed into the Union, and becomes its largest member. Freedom of speech will be shut down, and any criticism of Islam banned. Eurabia will become a global center for Jihad activities, as the dhimmi taxpayers and infidel Western technology give a boost to the Ummah. For this reason, the Americans, the Israelis, the Indians, the Russians and maybe even the Chinese will have to crush Eurabia by brute force, as it will represent a grave security threat for them.

Muslims will be heavily concentrated in the major cities, and the dhimmi native population will retreat into the countryside. I believe something similar took place in the Balkans during Ottoman Turkish rule. The old nation states will thus slowly die, as their major cities, which constitute the brain and "head" of its culture, are cut off from the rest of the body. Europe's decline into Eurabia will be speeded up by the fact that millions of educated natives with the means to it will move to the USA or other nations. This trickle of Eurabian refugees wil eventually be slowed down by the authorities in the now totalitarian Europe, as it will erode the tax base. Native Europeans will simply be banned from leaving. There will be no war in Western Europe, as its civilization is already dead and very few will bother fighting for it. The only violence will be sporadic Islamic terror attacks to induce fear, and occasional Muslim mob assaults in European streets to remind the dhimmis who is boss. It is conceivable that the center of European civilization will move from Western Europe to Eastern Europe, but even Eastern Europe will be put under severe pressure from Muslims, both in the Middle East and in the West.

2. War.


Personally, I think this alternative is at least as likely as the above. It also contains several sub-scenarios, partly depending upon when the eventual war starts, and partly on whether there is still some Western pride and resistance left in Europe underneath the self-loathing and Multiculturalism:

The Pakistanization of Europe.

Muslims aren't numerous enough to control the entire continent. In the event of war, there will be mutual ethnic cleansing and Muslims will seize parts of Western Europe. For instance, a belt stretching from parts of Germany via Belgium and Holland to France, but maybe even regions within certain nation states. All of Europe will not be lost, but some parts will, and many others will de deeply damaged by the fighting. Much of our cultural treasures will burn. How things will go from there is difficult to predict. Perhaps this new "Pakistan" in the heart of Europe will be the source of constant instability and the staging ground for Jihad incursions into infidel areas, just as Pakistan is to India now. Perhaps we will see a slow reconquest of this area, possibly taking generations or even centuries.

Reconquista - The Second Expulsion of the Moors

Muslims strike too early, before they are ready to seize control over major chunks of Europe. It is possible to view the Jihad riots in France in this light. They overestimate their own power, and underestimate the strength that, despite everything, is still left in Europe. Once a full-blown civil war starts in one country, it can, and probably will, spread to other countries. We are now witnessing an example of this, as smaller "sympathy riots" have been staged by Muslims in Belgium, Holland, Germany and Denmark. Given the European Union's borderless nature, it is unlikely that war will be limited to one nation only. This will create a domino effect, and Muslims will be expelled from Europe yet again, after major bloodshed and millions of dead across the continent.

Global Civil War


Europe has been the primary staging ground for one cold and two hot world wars. It could become a major battlefield in an Islamic world war, too. A world war is already simmering, with Muslims clashes against Russia, Europe, Israel, China, India, the USA and Southeast Asia. Once the fighting starts in Europe, it could spread outside the continent and ignite a world war. This is the scenario that DP111 calls a "global civil war". It would become the worst and most destructive war in human history, involving nuclear weapons on both sides. It could completely destroy the Middle East and North Africa, deeply damage Europe, the Indian continent, and parts of Southeast Asia, and inflict serious casualties on the USA, Australia and Africa. Its secondary and economic ripples will be felt on all corners of the planet, uncluding the ones least involved in the actual fighting, such as Latin America and East Asia.

3. A Second Renaissance - Western Rebirth in Europe

Although I must admit that I find this scenario to be the least likely at this point, we should discuss the possibility of whether the Islamic threat will force the West to rethink its values and regain its strength. Can this be done, and how would this take place? Is it possible to avoid both major war and Eurabia or is this wishful thinking by now? The growth of Eurabia is closely tied to the growth of the EU. Perhaps we could derail Eurabia by dismantling the EU?

[crazyronin]

What do you call the random Muslim that doesn't directly partake in terrorist acts, but won't condemn terrorism and probably even glorifies it, doesn't support taking decisive action against it, and tolerates known terrorists to live and thrive around him?


silence = tacit approval.

The silence amongst the Muslim community is deafening.

[DVD Polizei]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14314969/

Well, the silence amoung the "average Muslim" is getting smaller. Go figure. Like we're surprised.

[GreenMonkey]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14314969/

Well, the silence amoung the "average Muslim" is getting smaller. Go figure. Like we're surprised.

For those that don't want to read a whole article:


The British say their inquiry began months ago — prompted by a tip from within the British Muslim community after the bloody July 7, 2005, terror bombings of the London transit system, The Washington Post reported.


Hmm....silence, eh?

[Rockmjd23]

(although all the athiests on this board probably hate them with a vengence for having a religion)
Cute.
It's self-contradictory, like all religious texts.
Cute. ;)

[DVD Polizei]

For those that don't want to read a whole article:



Hmm....silence, eh?

Hmmm, well, that article I read must've changed or I got the wrong link. The jist of it was that the general Muslim community in the UK was saying the US and UK are to blame for these attacks due to Iraq and Israel.

In this article, yes there was a "tip from within the Muslim community." But, that's pretty vague in itself. So if we take it at face value, we have ONE single Muslim who phoned in a tip from the ENTIRE Muslim community in the UK area where the July bombings took place.

Yeah, I'd still call this silence (or virtual silence) from the Muslim community to a large degree. The war in Iraq and Israel is thinning out the moderates, which tells me these moderates...aren't really moderate at all. They just kept their feelings and comments from public spotlight but eventually couldn't hold them in when Israel finally struck back.

While I can understand the frustration with the Iraq war, I cannot see the justification with Israel and their conflict. This isn't a "War On Islam". It's a war on those who have no respect for others. It is a war on those who want only one religion in this world and are willing to kill as many non-Muslims as possible.

[Breakfast with Girls]

Cute.It's self-contradictory, like all religious texts.Cute. ;)I have an opinion, based on my own reading of the various texts. Hardly equals "hates religious people with a vengeance." That's just stupid.

[Ky-Fi]

Hmmm, well, that article I read must've changed or I got the wrong link. The jist of it was that the general Muslim community in the UK was saying the US and UK are to blame for these attacks due to Iraq and Israel.



And that's another thing that gets me. Many in the Muslim community, and many in the Western left continue to assert that it's the foreign policy of the US and UK that's fueling extremism. Well, yes it is. OF COURSE they don't like US foreign policy towards the mideast, because it's always had the goal of keeping Islamic fundamentalists out of power. With all the mistakes, questionable morality, and flaws of US policy in the mideast over the last 60 years, I would say that the one consistency is that we've always tried to prevent Islamic militants from gaining power. That's why we supported the Shah of Iran, that's why we support the House of Saud, that's why we supported Saddam, Mubarik and King Hussein of Jordan---they kept the fundamentalist at bay. And that's why we've supported Israel, that's why we've disengaged from Iran, that's why we've disengaged from Hamas, that's why we support Israel destroying Hezbollah. I'm sure there were lots of other self-interests (including opposing the Soviets) involved in those decision, but underneath it all I think the US has usually understood that Islamic fundamentalists coming into power was not going to be in the US interests. Anyways, that's why I always chuckle when the Islamofascists and their apologists always blame US foreign policy for the terrorism. Well yeah, if we adopted a policy in the region that was more in line with promoting miitant Islam, I'm sure they'd like us a lot more.

I think many on the left are operating under this delusion that because US policy has supported questionable regimes in that region, that we've somehow been subverting the development of secular democracies in the ME. I might argue that since there has never been much popular support for Western-style secular democracies in the ME, what our foreign policy has actually done is PREVENT the fundamentalist from coming into power. Bush, after 9/11, determined that wasn't going to work anymore, so he decided to do a 180 degree turn, and actually actively, militarily push democracy on one of the main players in the region. Time will tell if he was right, and I hope he was, but it looks to me like the realpolitik approach of his predecessors was more in tune with the reality on the ground.

[GreenMonkey]

I might argue that since there has never been much popular support for Western-style secular democracies in the ME, what our foreign policy has actually done is PREVENT the fundamentalist from coming into power. Bush, after 9/11, determined that wasn't going to work anymore, so he decided to do a 180 degree turn, and actually actively, militarily push democracy on one of the main players in the region. Time will tell if he was right, and I hope he was, but it looks to me like the realpolitik approach of his predecessors was more in tune with the reality on the ground.

I agree that the old approach was better, albeit it a horrible choice. As much as I support democracy, equality, and secular government in Middle Eastern countries, I don't think they're ready for it, any more than super-religious Europe would have been ready for it back in the days when they were fighting wars over the different variants of Christianity (oops, that covers a lot of years :D ) and executing people for heresy. It would have just become a tool of the Catholics or the Protestants or whoever to turn their country into a theocratic democracy of oppression.

I'm firmly of the opinion that trying to force secular government and democracy down their throats would take an iron fist of brutality far worse than even what Hussein was doing. And I don't quite know if that is morally right or not. In the words of Robert McNamara -"How must evil must we do to do good?" How many innocents die in the crossfire?

Hell, look at the violence in the South in the post-civil war and civil-rights eras. It took excessive amount of police, sometimes riot troops, etc to keep fellow Americans from killing each other. The differences between these religious groups in the M.E. are far worse, and each seems dead set on keeping the others disenfranchised (or just plain keeping 'em dead).

I'd love to see secular government & democracy everywhere, but I don't think that it's realistically possible. I certainly wish Bush & co had been right and my cyncism wrong...but so far, it has come out much like I expected.

I think of it as a more long-term problem, not something that can be imposed overnight by war & occupation.

[Ky-Fi]

I'm firmly of the opinion that trying to force secular government and democracy down their throats would take an iron fist of brutality far worse than even what Hussein was doing. And I don't quite know if that is morally right or not. In the words of Robert McNamara -"How must evil must we do to do good?" How many innocents die in the crossfire?

Hell, look at the violence in the South in the post-civil war and civil-rights eras. It took excessive amount of police, sometimes riot troops, etc to keep fellow Americans from killing each other. The differences between these religious groups in the M.E. are far worse, and each seems dead set on keeping the others disenfranchised (or just plain keeping 'em dead).

I'd love to see secular government & democracy everywhere, but I don't think that it's realistically possible. I certainly wish Bush & co had been right and my cyncism wrong...but so far, it has come out much like I expected.

I think of it as a more long-term problem, not something that can be imposed overnight by war & occupation.

Good points, and I agree. I don't know what the answer is.

[DVD Polizei]

Morally right...is a paradox to a large degree.

[DeputyDave]

As an atheist in America I have never been forced to go to church or to pray by Christians. In fact I have a very healthy respect for Christians. In general they tend to be kinder, more polite, and more giving than your average person. I respect that our society’s morals and laws are based on Judaic-Christian beliefs and have no problem acknowledging that fact. Put up the 10 commandments in court houses if you want, there’s some pretty good stuff in there. I have no problem with the word “God” in the pledge of allegiance. As I don’t believe in god the word is meaningless and I could be saying “duck” for all I care. I guess what I’m trying to say is that mostly Christians and Christianity itself doesn’t bother me. Yes there is a small group of asshats among them but I could say the same about atheists (in fact the atheist loud mouths bother me more because they don’t have a higher power ordering them to be an asshole and should know better). I guess you could say I believe in freedom OF religion (or none at all) not freedom FROM religion.

Now Islam (in general) I hate as an atheist. Yes, there (might) be a small group of moderate “live and let live” Muslims around but the majority ARE fascists in their beliefs. Islam, from its beginning was a religion of force and conquering. Islam’s “prophet” was a war leader. From the start it spread like a cancer and has used oppression and coercion to force its beliefs on others. In present times most Muslim countries hardly tolerate any idea other than Islam. (Yes I have been to the Middle East – Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait – and even the most “liberal” pay religious freedom only lip service).

Sure Christianity had some pretty shitty moments in its history, but it certainly wasn’t founded in hate and intolerance. Yes Christianity has used war, oppression, and force to impose its ideals, but it mostly is not like that anymore.

I guess what I’m trying to say is it always surprise’s me how my fellow atheists are so quick to turn their energies to the bashing of anything Christian and yet seem to defend Islam at the same time. I’m not saying they agree with Islam, just that they give them a pass. Yes, there may be a few small (meaning totally insignificant) problems with religious freedom in America but in most Muslim countries it is 1,000 times worse… and spreading. Have they ever heard that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”? Shouldn’t we focus our energies on greater of the two evils? Instead of expending incredible amounts of time, energy, and money trying to remove a meaningless word from our pledge, how about focusing on blunting the spread and influence of Islamofacists?

To totally misquote the Bible: “Why consider the mote in your own eye, while ignoring the beam in your neighbor’s?”

Anyway, this is in response to the accusation that atheists at this forum hate Islam.
This one does.

[nodeerforamonth]

(Yes I have been to the Middle East – Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait – and even the most “liberal” pay religious freedom only lip service).

You're going to love this story then (especially being an atheist!):

About 15 years ago (long before 9/11), two of my bosses at the time went to the middle east for some sort of business trip. They're very well known in the economics academics field. They took a cab ride somewhere. Out of the blue, the driver asked them what religion they were! They thought it a completely weird question to be asking right out of the blue, but knowing how sensitive these people are, they decided to "play it safe" by saying the truth (one was of Jewish heritage): "We really don't believe in anything or any religion." Turns out it was the worst thing they could've said to the driver!

After saying that, my boss told me that the driver flew into a complete rage, going ballistic, pounding on his steering wheel, saying "I HATE it when people say that! How could no one not believe in anything! Why not pick one!??!" I think they got out of the cab as soon as they could, pretty shaken up. I certainly wasn't political at the time, but I never forgot that story.

[bhk]

Shouldn’t we focus our energies on greater of the two evils?

In case you haven't noticed, the media has been going after George W. Bush

;)

[exm]

Oh, being political correct. As far as I'm concerned, single out all muslims at the airports, public transportation stations, etc. Isn't it proven now that they are the only ones crazy enough to excute a mass terrorism plot?

I call them Muslim Terrorists.

[mike7162]

Good points, and I agree. I don't know what the answer is.

It appears the only answer, my friends, is going to be bloody, violent, destructive conflict.

[Ky-Fi]

Great piece from The Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=1NQHOE0NDY3HLQFIQMGCFGGAVCBQUIV0?xml=/opinion/2006/08/14/do1401.xml

'Fascistic' is the right word for Islamic fundamentalism

By Janet Daley


(Filed: 14/08/2006)


The anti-war-on-terror lobby has had a bad week. Not that it hasn't kept its end up. Oh no. Faced with a threat so devastating that it seemed more like a world-domination plot from a Superman comic than a hard-headed act of war, there was nothing for it but to fall back on semantics.

George W. Bush was pilloried for referring to "Islamic fascists" by, among others, the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu. Using that kind of language "on the ranch in Texas" did not help, he said, to make society "a good, neighbourly place".

I don't know what the ranch in Texas has to do with anything, but Dr Sentamu seems not to understand the difference between describing Islamic fundamentalists as fascistic, and saying that all Muslims are fascists.

Similar confusion seemed to prevail in much of the broadcast media. I heard one television interviewer ask a Muslim spokesperson if he thought that Mr Bush's "name-calling" had any point.

Name-calling? This makes it sound as if he had said: "Al-Qa'eda are a bunch of big fat poops."

The word "fascism" means an extreme totalitarian system that suppresses human rights and democratic freedoms.

Islamic fundamentalism is fascistic in the precise, technical sense of the word.

The war-on-reality brigade took aim at Tony Blair's "arc of extremism" phrase, too: it was simplistic and misleading to claim that all Muslim terrorists, from the Chechens to Iraqi Sunnis and Kashmiris, were somehow linked in one wicked confederacy.

And yet many of those same sceptical sophisticates who wished to distinguish so carefully between the various Islamic discontents would also claim that the answer to all our problems was to solve the Palestinian problem (and thus withdraw our support for Israel), which is certainly of little relevance to the anger of Kashmiri separatists with whom most British Muslim suspects identify.

Al-Qa'eda began talking about the Palestinian question after 9/11, only when it found itself having to give a plausible public account of its motives.

Until then, it was frank about its actual goal, which is to re-establish the Caliphate over the historic Islamic empire.

So maybe those who wish to conciliate this movement, who believe that it can be negotiated with in some rational way, would like to tell us where they would begin making concessions.

Would they like to explain to the citizens of Turkey that they may have to sacrifice their secular democracy and be ruled again by the theocracy from which they had broken free?

Or perhaps they could persuade the residents of Spain that, since Islam would like to rule the Alhambra once again, they must, in the interests of meeting al-Qa'eda halfway, consider sacrificing this region.

Next, perhaps, would be the recognition of sharia law in Muslim-dominated regions of Britain and France.

No wonder the liberals are in disarray. What we are up against is quite outside the limits of our rational political discourse.

This enemy does not even bother to offer explanations for its actions that fall within the acceptable bounds of Western debate: it is overtly racist, explicitly imperialistic and unapologetically inhumane.

So it is left to the media to make the apologias. First, the home-grown terrorist threat was the fault of racist Britain for denying opportunity and educational advancement to Muslim youth.

Then it turned out that most of those involved in the propagation of terrorism were middle-class and university-educated.

At least two of the suspects arrested in the latest alleged plot are converts to Islam: they cannot be said to have suffered a lifetime of embittering discrimination for their newly embraced faith.

This phenomenon is more reminiscent of Baader-Meinhoff than of the intifada - a fanatical cult of rebellious malcontents who are "alienated" (the word of the moment) by the actions of their government and the mores of their country.

This pernicious nonsense is treated by the BBC as if it were the height of reasonableness.

When a committee of Muslim spokesmen announces that, while it condemns violence etc, it nevertheless finds it somehow understandable that Muslim youth should be so "alienated" by the Government's foreign policy that they become willing recruits to a murderous lunatic sect, their statement is described as a bid for peace rather than a blatant piece of blackmail.

What exactly does it mean, this message of "peace": that you can only be safe if we get the foreign policy we want - otherwise some of us may feel justified in blowing you out of the sky?

That is what most of the broadcast vox pops on the British Muslim street seem to imply. Is this what the majority of the Muslim community really wants said in its name?

I find it hard to believe that the gentle, devoted Muslim families who I know feel this way. But perhaps the BBC believes that it is helping race relations in Britain by pointing a microphone at every young male hothead on the streets of Walthamstow and Birmingham, without bothering to ask who he speaks for, how many people he represents, whether even his parents agree with him.

Or by "balancing" every discussion with an equal number of Muslim moderates and extremists, implying that their numbers within the community are the same.

The trouble with the more benign elements among the Islamic community is that they are peculiarly diffident, especially if they are elderly or female - which makes the media's over-reliance on self-appointed "spokesmen" especially dangerous.

Whose considered judgment is it that the broadcast (unlike the print) media should cringe in the face of extremist Islam?

Where is the famously aggressive examination of Today when it is faced with a rant against America and Britain for "attacking Islam all over the world" (even though Britain and America went to war in Bosnia to defend Muslims)?

In the US, Democratic senator Joseph Lieberman, who supported the Bush foreign policy, has just been thrown out by his party primary - in effect, de-selected - in favour of an anti-war candidate who may be in a better position to exploit voters' disenchantment with events in Iraq.

For what may be similarly opportunistic reasons, the Tory party is backing away from support for Israel, even though Israel is the West's proxy in this global confrontation as much as Hizbollah is Iran's.

This is a critical moment. What we must call the "free world" will either decide that it must unite unequivocally against a force so dark that it is almost incomprehensible to democratic peoples, or else succumb to a daydream of denial that is nothing more than appeasement

[Breakfast with Girls]

George W. Bush was pilloried for referring to "Islamic fascists" by, among others, the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu. Using that kind of language "on the ranch in Texas" did not help, he said, to make society "a good, neighbourly place".Of course, neither does blowing up airplanes full of people.

[elperdido]

Great piece from The Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=1NQHOE0NDY3HLQFIQMGCFGGAVCBQUIV0?xml=/opinion/2006/08/14/do1401.xml

'Fascistic' is the right word for Islamic fundamentalism

By Janet Daley


(Filed: 14/08/2006)


-------Dr Sentamu seems not to understand the difference between describing Islamic fundamentalists as fascistic, and saying that all Muslims are fascists.-----------

Not only him, a whole lot of people do not understand the difference.

[Sominex]

Hmmm...


Would those Muslim Rights Groups prefer we just call ALL of them "Fascists"?


Since most of them are anyway, I would have a problem with it. Maybe, Just MAYBE, if these side liners would actually join in condeming the actual muslim terrorists they could make a better name for their religion and show that "not all muslims are terrorists". But as long as they sit idely by, I have no sympathy for them. They are contibuting to the problem

Terrorists.

[DVD Polizei]

How about we just call them all peaceful and then laugh our asses off when they are not in the same room.

Oh wait. I already do.