Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Islamic Fascism: CAIR Ignores History
Posted by: McQ on Friday, August 11, 2006

Apparently President Bush inflamed the politically correct among Muslims when he dared to refer to those who would rule the world under their caliphate as "Islamic fascists":
U.S. Muslim groups criticized President George W. 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.

U.S. officials have said the plot, thwarted by Britain, to blow up several aircraft over the Atlantic bore many of the hallmarks of al Qaeda.

"We believe this is an ill-advised term and we believe that it is counter-productive to associate Islam or Muslims with fascism," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations advocacy group.
Of course it is CAIR and one should expect such foolishness from a group which finds it hard to condemn Islamic extremists but oh so easy to condemn anyone who might utter something, even the truth, which might slight Muslims.

Frankly I'm glad to see the terminology finally shift from "terrorists" to what they really are. But as far as links to fascism go, one doesn't have to look any further than WW II and Haj Amin el-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem:

Show/Hide

And who was an admirer of his?
Haj Mohammad Amin al-Husseini's vicious anti-Semitic ideology formed a lasting impression on another young Arab nationalist, who became a close confidant and ardent disciple during his postwar exile in Cairo, when al-Husseini regaled his audiences with tales of Hitler's Germany.

Born on Aug. 24, 1929, Mohammed Abd al-Rahman Abd al-Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini enrolled at Cairo University in 1951. He came not to study, but because the university had become the hotbed of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Free Officers, unabashed Nazi sympathizers who, under Nasser's leadership, went on to stage a successful coup the following year. The coup was still far off, and the younger al-Husseini shortened his name in order to disguise his family ties. Ever since then, the world has known the mufti's most famous disciple as Yasser Arafat.
And on and on. There are those who would argue that it is anti-Semitism and not fascism that drives these groups. But that's simply not the case. A review of the hallmarks of fascism will quickly dispel such a notion:

Show/Hide

The final two points really address the particulars of Nazism (as it was state based), but all of the other hallmarks are present within the movement identified as "Islamic Fascism".

One only has to consider the "mission" of the IFs (ostensibly to establish a "Caliphate" - a religious but eventually "nationalistic" mission), their means of achieving it (terrorism, violence, supposedly divinely driven and blessed), unelected leadership (OBL, Nasrallah, leaders of other terror groups), citing of the West and Jews as the problem, the realization of Mohammed's dream of the Caliphate by Middle Eastern Muslims (historic mission/homogeneous mass), the characterization of Jews and other infidels (pigs, apes, etc) in order to dehumanize and scapegoat them for all of the problems suffered by Muslims in the Middle East, and, of course, the promise of a superior state under Sharia law within the Caliphate.

All fit and all point to style of fascism driven ostensibly by a perversion of Islam and aided and abetted by such states as Saudi Arabia (Wahaabism) and Iran. So history points to the fact the term "Islamic Fascism" is indeed correct. While its roots may have been in the virulent anti-Semitism of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the newest generation of IFs have taken it beyond just a war against Jews and expanded it into a war against the West and a dream of an Islamic state which could only be described as fascist.
"The problem with the phrase is it attaches the religion of Islam to tyranny and fascism, rather than isolating the threat to a specific group of individuals," said Edina Lekovic, spokeswoman for the Muslim Public Affairs Council in Los Angeles.

She said the terms cast suspicions on all Muslims, even the vast majority who want to live in safety like other Americans.

"When the people we need most in the fight against terrorism, American Muslims, feel alienated by the president's characterization of these supposed terrorists, that does more damage than good," Lekovic said.
Not really. What such a term does is properly characterize groups who are using the religion as their basis for action and who are excusing their fascist tendencies by saying it is the will of God. It is a far better term than "war on terror" as it does indeed bring a focus to the battle we're waging (and answers the question of why we're not addressing other forms of terrorism in the world). While it may be true that the IFs are mischaracterizing Islam's goals, it remains a fact that they present themselves as faithful to the religion and claim it is the basis of their actions.
Mohamed Elibiary, a Texas-based Muslim activist, said he was upset by the president's latest comments because he was concerned they would stir up resentment of Muslims in America.

"We've got Osama bin Laden hijacking the religion in order to define it one way. ... We feel the president and anyone who's using these kinds of terminologies is hijacking it too from a different side," he said.
Nonsense.

Just as Christianity must denounce any connection with such churches as neo-nazi abominations like the Identity Church movement in no uncertain terms, so it falls on main-stream Islam to denounce the IF movement. Until and unless they do that and do it in a manner which unmistakably disassociates them from those who, at this point are successfully identifying their movement with the religion of Islam, they will continue to hear the term which best describes the group(s) with which we are at war.

Islamic fascists.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
McQ:

I agree that Islamofacism accurately describes those who use terror to achive their goal of a merger between the state and radical Islamic fundamentalism. Moreover, I honestly don’t understand the objection to the term. Not only is it accurate, but it has the salutary effect of separating and isolating those terrorists from mainsteam adherents of Islam. No one is saying that all Muslims are Islamofacists, only that the Islamofacists are. What’s wrong with stating the obvious?
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
Excellent post, Bruce. You echo points made by Lance here:
Let us start with Jason. First of all the problem we face is not terrorism per se, and Jason and others have made that argument forcefully and well. However, it isn’t just Islamism either. The Muslim world is filled with fascist, odd Marxist and Islamic totalitarian movements. They have morphed over time and adopted a more Islamic face, Saddam and Arafat presided over steadily more Islamicized states (okay, in Arafat’s case state is hardly accurate, but bear with me) and Assad is moving in that same direction as well, but at their heart they are not dangerous because Islam is dangerous, but because totalitarianism is dangerous. These movements have less in common with the ancient caliphate (and exactly how it was worse than the states of Europe at the time is beyond me) than they do with European fascist, Nazi and communist movements.
One of the major problems, I think, with emphasizing the religion of these Middle Eastern fascists is that they use their religion as a vehicle for garnering support, which mirrors this "hallmark" almost identically:
Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk (Volkish in German, Populist in the U.S.) to join voluntarily in a heroic mission_often metaphysical and romanticized in character.
By persistently focusing on the religion (i.e. the organizing principle for the terrorists) and not on the stuctural and operative nature of the movement (i.e. its fascistic tendencies and goals) we end up playing into the hands of the terrorist leaders. In a comment to Lance’s post, Omar poignantly describes why this is so:
The MAJORITY of Muslims in the West and in non-Arab countries are not Salafis. We do not desire to spread Islam by the sword. We do not urge violent jihad against “infidel” nations. We do not condone homocide bombings. We do not wish to see Israel cease to exist. We do not believe Islam to be anything but a religion of peace. We will not allow others to define who we are, be they Christian fundamentalists, Western secularists, Salafi extremists, or the media and punditocracy.

We DO wish to live in peace. We do wish to continue practicing our religion unhidered by suspicion, paranoia, and threats of persecution. We do wish to live happily alongside all other races and creeds. We do want an end to Salafism. We do wish that Islam was portrayed as the vibrant, diverse religion that it is instead of the medieval monolithic religion of death that it is not. We will eventually make our voices heard and overcome the radicals that have stolen and poisoned one of the world’s greatest religions.
In short, while there is certainly no need to ignore that Islam is involved here, by emphasizing the religion instead of the totalitarian goals of the terrorists, we may incentivize otherwise moderate Muslims to support terrorist organizations. "See! They hate us because we are Muslims!" has much more of a rallying effect than "See! They hate us because we’re totalitarians!"
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
If they spend less time emphasizing their religion as the justifcation for their activities it would help wouldn’t it?

How do you make a successful distinction between government and religion in a self-selecting theocracy?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Mohamed Elibiary, a Texas-based Muslim activist, said he was upset by the president’s latest comments because he was concerned they would stir up resentment of Muslims in America.
Too late. Yet we’ll still show that were more civilized than the animals who are at war with us- I doubt any revenge acts like Mosque burnings or Muslim beatings will happen (outside of the isolated actions of lone idiots). Nor should they. Ours is the superior culture after all.

If you’re one of those "moderate" or "peace loving" or "law abiding" muslims, your beef isn’t with Pres. Bush. Bush has been 2nd to nobody in trying to soft-peddle the language.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
If they spend less time emphasizing their religion as the justifcation for their activities it would help wouldn’t it?
Of course! That’s why they do it, IMHO, because it effectively frames the struggle as between the West/Israel and Muslims in general.
How do you make a successful distinction between government and religion in a self-selecting theocracy?
Well you can distinguish "soup" from french onion soup, or mulligatawny soup, or chicken soup, or even red herring soup, can’t you? I think it pretty much works the same way. There is totalitarianism (or "fascism" if you like) in toto, of which Islmofascism is one subset. I don’t think you can ignore that Islam (or the perversion thereof) is an organizing principle in this brand of totalitarianism. It’s just that we would likely find it useful, and attract more influential allies (i.e. moderate Muslims unequivocally opposed to Islamofascism) if we insisted on emphasizing the political structure instead of its theme.

Another way to look at it is that we didn’t care that fascists in Spain were Christians, that the Nazis were cultists, or that the Japanese followed Shintoism.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Another way to look at it is that we didn’t care that fascists in Spain were Christians, that the Nazis were cultists, or that the Japanese followed Shintoism.
That’s because the fascists in Spain, the Nazis and the Japanese didn’t claim their brand of totalitarianism was divinely given.

The usefulness of using "Islamic Fascism" is pushing those who claim they aren’t properly characterizing Islam to do something about it.

We can’t disassociate them from Islam simply by not using the term. They are doing the associating, not us. This is a task for those who make the claim that the IFs are hijacking their religion to do something about it.

For instance, it isn’t up to the government of the US to claim the Identity Church isn’t founded in Christian principles and denounce it, it is the role of the Christian church to do that.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
We can’t disassociate them from Islam simply by not using the term. They are doing the associating, not us. This is a task for those who make the claim that the IFs are hijacking their religion to do something about it.
I’m not advocating simply dropping any mention of Islam. I’m suggesting that putting more emphasis on "-fascism" and less on the "Islamo-". Whose job it is to prevent the hijacking of the Muslim religion is irrelevant here. It just seems to me to be much more efficient to rally against fascism/totalitarianism (or whatever) than to try and force moderate muslims to choose their co-religionists or a foreign culture.
For instance, it isn’t up to the government of the US to claim the Identity Church isn’t founded in Christian principles and denounce it, it is the role of the Christian church to do that.
Again, that’s not what I’m suggesting. I don’t think we should be involved in the inter-religious struggle at all. Instead, I think we should focus on the political structure of the enemy.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Whose job it is to prevent the hijacking of the Muslim religion is irrelevant here.
I disagree if you’re serious about getting allies to the cause. One of the most important allies we can recruit is "moderate Islam" and until they get serious about taking back their religion (and not just complaining about those who they feel are mischaracterizing it by using the term Islamofascist) the term should persist.

It is up to them to redefine the IFs, not us.
Instead, I think we should focus on the political structure of the enemy.
The "political structure" of the enemy really doesn’t exist at this time except as a description. The religion it touts as its inspiration and justification does. And because it does, it suckers any number of recruits into its cause through religious reasons they claim are true. Remove the religious component and suddenly recruiting isn’t as viable and dying for a lie not as attractive.

That is the job of mainstream Islam.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Bruce:

I think we are saying the same thing. Just differently.

I’m not complaining about the term Islamofascist or IF at all. Instead I think it’s correct and necessary. I’m simply stating that we should point out the fascist aspects as much as possible instead focusing so much on the islam part. As it stands now, how attention, if any, is ever given to the fascistic tendencies?
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
McQ,

I have to respectfully disagree with this:
That’s because the fascists in Spain, the Nazis and the Japanese didn’t claim their brand of totalitarianism was divinely given.
While that is for the most part true of Nazi Germany, it wasn’t in Japan’s case. More exactly, Franco was specifically trying to re-establish "The Reign of Christ the King."
We can’t disassociate them from Islam simply by not using the term. They are doing the associating, not us.
True, but obviously the followers of the Islamo-fascists are saying that Islam demands their actions. They believe it to be true. Franco did the same. I think it would be foolish to pretend this is not a problem within Islam, and so does Omar, but I do believe we cannot act as if it is Islam itself that is the problem anymore than Catholicism was the real problem in Spain or the desire to help the poor was the real problem in Marxism. All totalitarian systems use the social goals, myths, customs or religious beliefs of their setting. They believe the connection is real as well. The fact that they believe their interpretation of social justice, religious faith or national identity justifies their policies in no way makes it true. I suggest we and moderate Muslims (heck how about immoderate freedom loving Muslims such as Omar) not cede the debate to them by saying that the IF’s do represent Islam.
This is a task for those who make the claim that the IFs are hijacking their religion to do something about it.
The religion it touts as its inspiration and justification does. And because it does, it suckers any number of recruits into its cause through religious reasons they claim are true. Remove the religious component and suddenly recruiting isn’t as viable and dying for a lie not as attractive.

That is the job of mainstream Islam.
I agree, and I believe Michael probably does as well, but I suggest we can help make it easier. One problem we have there is that our media pays almost no attention to Muslims who are opposed to the IF’s. Over at our site we have put up several links to organizations that do condemn the IF’s and the secular totalitarians as well. I’ll be adding more momentarily. I don’t mean the mealy mouthed two faced condemnations of CAIR, but people who do care about liberty.

I think the post is spot on McQ, good work as usual.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
McQ, I agree with you about the Nazis, however the Japanese attitude toward government (be it fascist or otherwise) prior to World War Two was most assuredly based in religion. I can’t think of anything more indicative of this than the idea of the Emperor’s divine mandate to rule. If the Emperor (chosen and blessed by the heavens) was ok with fascism, then so were the Japanese people. Spain is arguable in this regard as the Christian Falangist groups were definitely long on religious rhetoric, but I can see the argument going either way in this specific example.

Regarding who is doing the association between Islam and fascism. If your belief is that the worldwide radical Islamic terrorists are defining their own movement, rather than us, shouldn’t we have a problem with that? I’m no tactician, but why would you allow the enemy to choose the ground that he wants to fight on? What is the preferred tactical solution to an ambush situation? Immediate counterattack or hunkered down defense? Put another way, why should we allow the bad guys to set the terms of the debate. Shouldn’t we take the initiative and define the war on terror in terms advantageous to us?

As regards the whole "no such thing as moderate Muslims" debate. I refer some of the hard-liners to the following:

http://www.libforall.org/

http://freemuslims.org/

http://www.aicongress.org/index.html

And shark, you are quick to dismiss harassment of Muslims and burnings or vandalism of Masjiks as the isolated actions of lone idiots and not actions that are generally supported bt Westerners and/or Christians. Do you not see how Muslims see the terrorists in exactly the same light?
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
CAIR and other muslims, and otherwise well meaning, but exceedingly dense liberals, are obfuscating by focusing on the word fascist.. they seek to invalidate the term Islamic Fascist by claiming that fascism is a nationalist ideology.. and then claiming that Islam is not nationalist, which is b.s.

Look at the excuse given for terrorism for and by the perps and apologists.. their excuse is "the persecution and aggression against Muslims in the mid east and Afghanistan", and by their words they prove that Islam is nationalistic, a nation whose only boundaries are the entire globe, not some man made lines on a map.

Muslims refer to themselves as an ummah or community of believers (sans borders) and as moslemah (worldwide community of Muslims) agains sans borders. Islam is the epitomy of nationalism, a nationalism defined by an ideology.. and Islam is an ideology (of Arab imperialism) in the guise of a religion.
 
Written By: Bill
URL: http://
And shark, you are quick to dismiss harassment of Muslims and burnings or vandalism of Masjiks as the isolated actions of lone idiots and not actions that are generally supported bt Westerners and/or Christians. Do you not see how Muslims see the terrorists in exactly the same light?
Well there’s the rub Omar. We don’t see quite enough evidence of that. CAIR issuing a perfunctory disassociation from the terrorists then launching into a "we are the victim" mode doesn’t really fill me with the sense that they’re against the terrorists. Better the language inflamed than planes in flames, know what I mean? They don’t seem to grasp that concept.

The break in this case was given by a Muslim who was worried. That’s AWESOME. You’d think CAIR would want to push that line to the heavens.

Bottom line Omar- Muslims need to prove that they reject the terrorists. Unfair maybe, but that’s how it is.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
While that is for the most part true of Nazi Germany, it wasn’t in Japan’s case. More exactly, Franco was specifically trying to re-establish "The Reign of Christ the King."
That may be Lance, but because of who supported each side (USSR/Nazis) it became a battle between communism and fascism. While history may note your point, it remembers it as I’ve characterized it.

Not so with what is going on with Islamofascists.
I do believe we cannot act as if it is Islam itself that is the problem anymore than Catholicism was the real problem in Spain or the desire to help the poor was the real problem in Marxism.
I’m not making that claim. I’m pointing out it is up to Islam to take back its good name, not us. Until they directly and forcefully repudiate this splinter element who uses and cites their religion as their primary reason for doing what they’re doing, the term is both apt and descriptive.

As I point out to Michael, moderate Islam’s forceful and "loud" denunciation of these radicals is key to removing the religious patina which boosts their recruiting effort. If ever there was a path to getting to "root causes", that’s one of them.
All totalitarian systems use the social goals, myths, customs or religious beliefs of their setting. They believe the connection is real as well. The fact that they believe their interpretation of social justice, religious faith or national identity justifies their policies in no way makes it true. I suggest we and moderate Muslims (heck how about immoderate freedom loving Muslims such as Omar) not cede the debate to them by saying that the IF’s do represent Islam.
That’s the problem, Lance, the debate has been ceded to them by ignoring the basis under which they recruit. What does "Hezobollah" mean? Party of which God? What does OBL issue? Fatwas. Which religion issues fatwas, Lance? In what diety’s name does he issue them?

So how does one ignore or downplay that when it is an integral part of these movements?

We can denounce them all day long. And claim they don’t really represent Islam. And they easily wave that off as a bunch of infidels trying to get into their heads and hurt their recruiting.

But if a collection of 100 or so moderate imams in various locations did that, what would be the impact?

So I have to disagree ... stressing the Islamic component of their claim is just as important as their political structure, since it is the religious component by which they recruit, not the political.
One problem we have there is that our media pays almost no attention to Muslims who are opposed to the IF’s.
I don’t disagree, Lance. But then, they’d have difficulty ignoring 100, or 200, or 500 wouldn’t they? Any history of 100 or even 50 getting together to do something like that?
Over at our site we have put up several links to organizations that do condemn the IF’s and the secular totalitarians as well. I’ll be adding more momentarily. I don’t mean the mealy mouthed two faced condemnations of CAIR, but people who do care about liberty.
That’s good, but if they want the IF designation to go away, it is their responsibility to get together and make the case, not ours.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ, I agree with you about the Nazis, however the Japanese attitude toward government (be it fascist or otherwise) prior to World War Two was most assuredly based in religion.
It was also based in tradition and that tradition was properly characterized as militarism. And while they may have referred to the divinity of the Emperor, they were as much captives of a cult as were the Nazis. But here’s the point, Omar ... all Japanese were members of this cult, not just some of them.

So unlike Islam which claims these are only a small part of the whole, Japan was entirely caught up in the cult. No need to differentiate or separate because of religion. Militarism did just fine. They didn’t deny their religion led them to militarism. So there was no need to stress it.

Here we have a splinter group claiming the same religion as the rest of Islam and claiming their interpretation is the true interpretation and successfully recruiting fighters and suicide bombers as a result.

Tell me, who’s responsibility is it to set this right? And until they do, why is it improper to call them what they claim to be as a descriptor?

They are Islamic fascists. They claim their religion as their primary motivation and use it as their primary recruiting tool. I think it is an apt description and that the religious component should be emphasized just as much as the political descriptor.
If your belief is that the worldwide radical Islamic terrorists are defining their own movement, rather than us, shouldn’t we have a problem with that?
Not at all. They are what they are. They have based their movement in the religion of Islam and their intent is to establish a fascistic state in the future. What is commonly referred to mainstream Islam has made little noise on the whole to try to wrestle their religion back from them. Why, given their seeming reticence to do so, should I believe them over the fascists?

Where are the fatwas condeming terrorism from prominent Imams? Where are the fatwas which decry and denounce the use of the Koran as the basis for waging a barbaric war against "infidels"? Where is the blanket denunciation of al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah as not acting as Muslims are taught to act and condemning them as being "outside Islam"?

We’re not the ones that can define or "undefine" this movement when it comes to Islam. Only Islam as a whole has that right. And to this point I’ve seen little desire on the part of the mass of Islam to undertake that responsiblity.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Shark,

You are right about CAIR, and for what its worth Omar agrees.

McQ,

I do believe we cannot act as if it is Islam itself that is the problem anymore than Catholicism was the real problem in Spain or the desire to help the poor was the real problem in Marxism.
I’m not making that claim. I’m pointing out it is up to Islam to take back its good name, not us. Until they directly and forcefully repudiate this splinter element who uses and cites their religion as their primary reason for doing what they’re doing, the term is both apt and descriptive.
Hey, I am trying to reinforce your point, not disagree! I promise that I in no way thought you were making any such claim. I am arguing against those that do, some of whom read your site. I do think we can help Muslims take back their good name, but you are right about who the most important parties are.
stressing the Islamic component of their claim is just as important as their political structure, since it is the religious component by which they recruit, not the political.
Actually I agree. My own sense is that we overemphasize the Islamic component, but I really have no big issue with that either. The term fits and I think Michael quoted me as support for your argument on the historical roots of Islamic fascism. Of course much of this fascism isn’t Islamic at all, though the secular regimes are sliding that way as well.
I don’t disagree, Lance. But then, they’d have difficulty ignoring 100, or 200, or 500 wouldn’t they? Any history of 100 or even 50 getting together to do something like that?
Actually I think there is, I’ll get back to you on it, including if I am wrong.

Anyway, I want to reiterate that I don’t disagree with anything you wrote, outside of my point about the religious nature of Spanish fascism. I endorse and have used Islamic fascist as my term of choice for a long time. I was just trying to elaborate, obviously clumsily.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
Hey, I am trying to reinforce your point, not disagree!
Heh ... well I got a little lost in your point, since you seemed to be saying that Islam itself isn’t the problem, and I’m saying it is indeed part of the problem (i.e. it is doing next to nothing to take its name back from those it claims are misusing it).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I see. What I meant to say was that Islam isn’t inherently a fascist belief system, but it is most certainly a problem for Islam.
I think it would be foolish to pretend this is not a problem within Islam, and so does Omar, but I do believe we cannot act as if it is Islam itself that is the problem anymore than Catholicism was the real problem in Spain or the desire to help the poor was the real problem in Marxism.
Obviously I need to work on how I say it, but what I am getting at is that the Ummah does need to deal with the problem in its midst, hasn’t done a good enough job yet (okay, understatement) and, that by attaching Fascism to Islam in the term Islamic Fascist we distinguish between fascism and Islam itself. That is a good thing. Islamic Fascism is not contiguous with Islam. If the problem was Islam itself, rather than too many of its adherents, then we would have no hope for anyone taking back the faith.

Of course the problem is that it is far more contiguous than it should be.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
Until you get the majority of their community condeming it the same way most Westerners would condemn an IRA bombing of a bandbox or night club, (or Israel using ’disproportionate force’) they should be stuck with it.

If their religion means that much to them, and they don’t in fact agree with the activities of a few supposedly fanatic individuals, then they should strive to recapture it so the non-muslim world community sees it the same way.

As it stands right now, I remember crowds of muslims celebrating in certain countries over the 9/11 strikes, I don’t recall much on the order of mass marches "condeming the actions" the way Jordan did after the wedding bombing (half of which I’m forced to attribute to anger over attacks on Muslims, at a wedding, rather than just anger over terrorist attacks and activities done under the cover of "Islam").
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
What I meant to say was that Islam isn’t inherently a fascist belief system, but it is most certainly a problem for Islam.
Ah, we agree. And ...
...that by attaching Fascism to Islam in the term Islamic Fascist we distinguish between fascism and Islam itself. That is a good thing. Islamic Fascism is not contiguous with Islam.
... we agree again.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Confirmation bias and the sensationalist media filter that is often complained about here as benefitting the left, will help the right on this issue by making sure the media basically ignores moderate muslims who denounce violence, and making sure that when they don’t literally ignore it, that it is buried beneath the denunciations of the fascists and belligerents, and that when it’s not buried, we’ll dismiss it.

No one considers it a story when muslims don’t approve of terrorist actions. It doesn’t fit the "clash of civilizations" that everyone is looking for, and create with instinctive filtering to match their apprehensions.

This is the same reason US propaganda (or "informational efforts, either way) fail in the ME.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Looker,
Until you get the majority of their community condeming it the same way most Westerners would condemn an IRA bombing of a bandbox or night club, (or Israel using ’disproportionate force’) they should be stuck with it.
Stuck with what?
If their religion means that much to them, and they don’t in fact agree with the activities of a few supposedly fanatic individuals, then they should strive to recapture it so the non-muslim world community sees it the same way.
Uhhh....what? First of all nobody here has said it is a few individuals. It isn’t. It is a large scale fascist movement in the Muslim world with millions of devoted followers. This includes variations on the more European style Baathist socialist states, and weird Marxist cults surrounding the PLO as well as the Shia and Sunni Islamic fascist movements. In addition to these ideologies adherents, there are millions more who are fellow travelers. These are the "so-called moderates" such as CAIR. If that is what you are driving at you are preaching to the choir. You and I have been commenting here a long time, as has Omar and Michael. I can’t see how anyone could feel any of us (and I can think of nobody else you could be speaking to at this point) is somehow unaware of the scope of the threat we face.

There are also millions of Muslims who just wish that the jihadis would go away and every body would leave them alone. We might not like that, but it is a pretty human response. That is the group we need to get mobilized and both demanding and encouraging their action as well as not insulting there own faith (as opposed to the twisted faith of the fascists) is an appropriate response.

If by being stuck with something, you mean that Muslims are stuck with the term Islamic Fascist even though they personally are not, I suggest that is a poor way to get them to act. How about our media and we, as individuals, should be praising to the high heavens those who are speaking out. Give them credit and declare them allies. How about forcefully condemn the silence and weaselly apologies and or "condemnations" we get from all too many quarters in the Muslim community. That is a problem, a big one. Sticking them with some blanket religious smear won’t help at all. It wouldn’t be helpful if only 20% of Muslims were not Salafists. Smear the fascists, people like Omar or the people at the American Islamic Conference need encouragement.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
No one considers it a story when muslims don’t approve of terrorist actions. It doesn’t fit the "clash of civilizations" that everyone is looking for, and create with instinctive filtering to match their apprehensions.

This is the same reason US propaganda (or "informational efforts, either way) fail in the ME.
And of course the same bias and filter exists among the press in the ME where the same phenomenon seems to exist, right?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ,

I think the answer is yes!
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
I think the answer is yes!
I think the answer is they aren’t speaking out like many would like to believe they are or claim they are.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
OOOPS,

I misinterpreted whose bias and filter you were referring to. I meant our press has a difficult time with its biases and filters in covering the Middle East. That being said, I do think the efforts aren’t covered even there, but there is precious little to hear.

However, in Muslim countries not in the Middle East there is significant resistance to the Salafist message by religious figures. For example in Indonesia there are large religiously inspired campaigns fighting the Salafists. These efforts are covered in the Indonesian and Asian press, but hardly ever here.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
McQ - But as far as links to fascism go, one doesn’t have to look any further than WW II and Haj Amin el-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem:
It is one of the favorite zionist propaganda efforts to show that Arabs were cozy with the Nazis, but what Arabs would not be hopeful that the enemy of their enemy the British could be their friend? To get rid of Hitler, we had to ally with the Jewish Bolsheviks and other butchers, including Stalin...who had murdered more than Hitler. "Good old Uncle Joe!" "My dear friend Commissar Lev Kaganovich" (the Liquidator) were just a few of the brainless praises FDR gave his commie allies. I can forgive FDR readily because he adroitly stuck the USSR with doing 60 times the dying to win WWII than we Americans did.

The Grand Mufti just did what any ethical, smart Arab politician would do:

1. The Brits and French knifed the Arabs in the back after promising the Arabs would have their lands back if their Arab Legions fought for Britain in WWII and defeated the Ottomans. The Arabs did, then found their lands awarded to Jewish zionist groups who financed Britain in a sticky point, Brits kept the Suez canal, and France & Britain awarded rule to themselves as colonial powers and monarchs under their control (Hashemites). So Arabs looked for a strong horse to be kissy-kissy with. The Soviets were abhorrent to the Arab and out of the question. The Americans turned them down other than our special Saudi deal. Mussolini was busy. But the Germans were eager for ME allies, and by the 30s they were strong enough to give the Arabs some serious leverage.

2. The Palestinians hoped the Germans could help them out after 20 years of riots and land grabs in Palestine. The Brits were seen as the guarantors of Zionism...something the Brits didn’t much agree with themselves. ( Balfour is regarded as one of the British Empire’s 3 biggest mistakes). The Mufti felt the same warmness in his heart for Nazi allies and Americans did when Soviet delegations visited with their US military counterparts in WWII. If we or a (non-communist) Russia had wanted Britain out of Arab lands, no doubt the Mufti would have been quite friendly with us. [Germany didn’t share the love...the general German view was that Arabs were the barbarous, paranoid remnants of a decayed Civilization and a savage superstituous religion without the cunning or brains of their cousins, the Jews.]

====================================================
MichaelW - I’m not advocating simply dropping any mention of Islam. I’m suggesting that putting more emphasis on "-fascism" and less on the "Islamo-". Whose job it is to prevent the hijacking of the Muslim religion is irrelevant here. It just seems to me to be much more efficient to rally against fascism/totalitarianism (or whatever) than to try and force moderate muslims to choose their co-religionists or a foreign culture.
If you read the lectures or Fatwas of Islamist Whabbis and Salafis and Shia Fundamentalists, you will find they root their fascism firmly in the ground of the written and inerrant words of the Holy Qu’ran. Fascism is organic to Islam, so deeply intertwined in matters of faith scholars cannot see how the two can be separated without violating Qu’ranic teachings.

Acts we consider fascistic - intolerance and killing of non-believers, Jihad, subjugation of women, glory in death - many Islamics simply consider strict religious observance.

Many in the West talk about the inevitable "Reformation" that will return Islam to it’s "moderate roots".
But I am afraid those people are dead wrong. Islam was an austere, militant faith of conquest when it started. Such diversity and moderation as existed happened through temporal dealings and the materialism of the Caliphate dynasties. Sort of like the coruupted Catholic Church’s embrace of "diversity and differing opinions until the Christian Reformation of austere fundamentalism returned Christianity (so they claim to its roots). The consensus of Islamic scholars is the Muslims already had their Reformation on both sides of their Schism back to the earlier, purer fundamentalist Quranic path.

Whabbism, Salafism, and Shiite Fundamentalism ARE the Islamic version of the Christian Protestant Reformation.

That makes MichaelW’s proposal quite difficult. Since fascism is not separable from Islam, it necessarily entails criticising the Faith. Americans have incredible aversion through constant PC habituation and Pavlovian training to criticize any religious belief outside Scientology because it is just sooooooooooo insenstitive and bigoted and judgmental and all that.....But once upon a time we had no problem criticizing and acting against AztecoFascism, ThugeeMurdering, RastamanDrugDealing, ShintoMilitarism, MormonBigamy —-criticizing both Practices & Faith.
If their religion means that much to them, and they don’t in fact agree with the activities of a few supposedly fanatic individuals, then they should strive to recapture it so the non-muslim world community sees it the same way.

As it stands right now, I remember crowds of muslims celebrating in certain countries over the 9/11 strikes, I don’t recall much on the order of mass marches "condeming the actions" the way Jordan did after the wedding bombing (half of which I’m forced to attribute to anger over attacks on Muslims, at a wedding, rather than just anger over terrorist attacks and activities done under the cover of "Islam").

Written By: looker


Quite true. The enraged crowds in Jordan’s REAL beef with Zarqawi was that he crossed the line from permitted killing to Actual Murder by killing Fellow Muslims. If he had only killed a few dozen Brazilian tourists instead, there would have been no crowds or outrage. Bali, 9/11, Beslan protests in the "moderate Muslim world?", Basically almost nil. Seething, angry crowds are reserved for indidel war mongers, imprisioned terrorists, and blasphemous cartoonists.
A lot of this drivel about "moderate Islam" stems from the same long ago time when Bush was convinced only a handful of "evildoers" hijacked the "Religion of Peace" away from a Vast, Vast Hidden Stockpile of secret moderates - and the war was NOT against Islamofascism but the "global tactic of terror". Bush had his Neocons and many "experts" advising him that way - as opposed to naming the enemy - but it looks more and more like a Pee Wee Herman "stratergy" in hindsight.

The Pew Poll Reports show that most Muslims dislike infidels. Jews and atheist Communists especially. The era of "moderate Islam" was a century or so before the Caliphate was smashed by Mongols. The modern era of "moderate Islamists" was basically those Muslims under the firm belief that they must restrain their rage and urge to Jihad - otherwise they would be squashed like bugs if they trifled with the Brits, Russians, Turks, American Marines. Nowadays the economic, technological, and military power disparity is even greater than when Muslims vied to get a job poliching the Sahib’s boots - the difference is we have been wussified by the Lefties, Euroweenies, and the ACLU-types. We go back to willing to squash them and the Muslim, conditioned to hate but yet grovel before strength - is under control again. You do that by "disproportionately" retaliating on their civilians if they kill your own by terror, or bushwhack your troops after hostilities have ended. Perhaps the 1st flattened Fallujah may cause even more frothing at the mouth rabid seething mobs...but by the 15th or so Fallujah they would get the idea.
 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
It is one of the favorite zionist propaganda efforts to show that Arabs were cozy with the Nazis,
Good lord man, it went beyond "cozy". Did you read the cite?

Cozy might be soliciting help. Cozy might mean fighting on in your land with that help. Enemy of my enemy, etc. What it wouldn’t mean is advising and helping to implement the "Final Solution" in Germany or exhorting your hosts to do more faster. I mean if your fight was against "Zionists" in the ME and all.

"Cozy" indeed.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Let me apologize in advance because I’m sure this comment will violate every rule of netiquette in existence. Earlier today as Second Hand Conjecture (first faux pas — citing another blog) I asked (second faux pas — quoting myself) Poet Omar this question:
Do you think Muslims are being vocal enough in renouncing the Islamofacists? If so, where is this being done and by whom (in addition to the AIC)? If not, why not?
Omar said (third faux pas — speaking for another):
I do think that more needs to be done by the moderates in addressing the issue of Islamofascim. Part of the problem is restriction of freedom of speech in nations other than the US. Part of it is fear of violent reprisal by radical groups. Part of it is simply the natural tendency of a specific group (divided thought it may be) to want to “circle the wagons” so to speak when an outside group confronts it.

I think the general feeling out there is sort of wait and watch. I honestly believe that moderates are the vast majority, but when conflicting signals are sent to them by non-Muslims demanding that they rise up and oppose the radicals, it’s tough to generate a lot of enthusiasm. By conflicting signals, I mean the kind of stuff that Coulter/Fallwell/Robertson, etc. throw out there versus those who honestly want a mutually respectful dialog with Islam.
I think these are legitimate concerns. More importantly, they exist whether I think they should or not. It is in the interest of the U.S. to remove barriers and obstacles to the ascendancy of moderate Muslims. It really has nothing to do with who should do what, it has everything to do with what is most likely to work.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
Lance -
Heh - ooooopppps ’of a few supposedly fanatic individuals" -
should read
"supposedly of a few fanatic individuals"

There’s nothing supposed about them.

And yeah, sorry, I am preaching to the choir, mostly, except for the random
folk like dear MK.

I’d like to believe Omar is right.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
It is in the interest of the U.S. to remove barriers and obstacles to the ascendancy of moderate Muslims. It really has nothing to do with who should do what, it has everything to do with what is most likely to work.
What barriers and obstacles stand in the way of the ascendancy of moderate Muslims that the US has the power to remove? Why is it the US’s responsiblity and not that of the moderate Muslims themselves?

And why aren’t the "moderate Muslims" in Europe speaking out? What barriers and obstacles are preventing that?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
You have asked three separate questions, McQ, and I’m no expert. But l’ll answer each as best I can, though briefly b/c it’s late (and the Sox finally won one):
And why aren’t the "moderate Muslims" in Europe speaking out? What barriers and obstacles are preventing that?
I imagine for many of the same reasons Omar mentioned for American Muslims.
What barriers and obstacles stand in the way of the ascendancy of moderate Muslims that the US has the power to remove?
That’s a very good question. My macro-answer is the the U.S. should incorporate this goal — enhancing the stature of moderate Muslims/underming the Islamofacists — into its general foreign policy framework. Of course, each specific policy decision must still be determined on its own merits, and the Muslim concern is not exclusive, primary, or even necessarily significant in any particular case. But is should be considered in all cases. If this has been done to date, it has escaped my notice.
Why is it the US’s responsiblity and not that of the moderate Muslims themselves?
Yes, moderate Muslims should do more. That was the point of my initial question to Omar. My secondary point, though, is that it doesn’t matter so much who should do it, but that it get done. The U.S. should do what it can to help moderate Muslims because it is in the U.S.’s interest to do so.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
I think its time to consider the possibility that the ’moderate muslim’ is a myth. Or atleast incorrectly defined.

There are two ways to look at so-called ’moderate muslims’

1) Muslims who believe that the ends do not justify the means. And that given power, they would suppress the radicals in their society.

2) Muslims who do not take part or will not take in the same activities as the radicals, but will not stop them.

Definition #1 is what is commonly assumed. Its time to consider #2 as being the reality or as being a large and probably majority portion of what we consider ’moderates’.

Definition #2 can be probably include people who wouldn’t choose the radicals’ method or people who may even abhor the methods of the radicals. But, they are willing to accept the fruits of the radicals’ labors willingly. For them the ends redeem the means, if there were any reservations about the means to begin with.

Some of the signs that Definition #2 is the greater reality is the lack of condemnation for one. Another is that even in oppressed societies, the majority population still holds some sway but radicals are still tolerated.

Just because a Muslim doesn’t participate in radical activities himself does not mean he will or even wants to stop it. I think we’ve either incorrectly defined a moderate muslim or apply the definition too readily and too universally.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
I don’t think moderate is the right word. However there are some, too few, but some who are speaking out.
My secondary point, though, is that it doesn’t matter so much who should do it, but that it get done. The U.S. should do what it can to help moderate Muslims because it is in the U.S.’s interest to do so.
Exactly. We can all wish people were what we want them to be, but precious few are. I am not, and I don’t think anyone on this thread is, suggesting that the problem isn’t a problem primarily for Muslims. One thing that is discouraging according to the Muslims I know is that they never get any recognition for their efforts. They risk ostracism or worse to organize conferences, meetings, fund projects to help out in Iraq, Israel and other locales. Then they have to listen to people talk as if they don’t exist and that it isn’t even really possible that they can exist. It is as if Germans and Japanese in the 1940’s were working in the resistance but had to listen to what barbarians all Germans and Japanese are. In fact, that did happen.

Our attitude may be understandable, then and now, but it is hardly useful in building more support. It also ignores non arab muslim countries, especially in southeast asia that have large moderate populations that are actively fighting the terrorists with the support of the vast majority of the population. Are those millions of people to be relegated to irrelevancy? I hope not, because without their support this war gets a whole lot bigger and our side gets a whole lot smaller.

I also suggest we not forget the Kurds. Are they not our allies? Are not significant numbers of Kurds moderate? If what I have read from Michael Totten and Michael Yon amongst others is to be believed many, if not most, are. Of course our media hardly mentions them, as if a relatively peaceful and prosperous part of Iraq is a problem for the story they are trying to write. I could go on, but I hope we can see the point.

This is an awful and bleak situation, but it is not true that we have no allies, and more importantly possible allies amongst Muslims. Go ahead and criticize the Muslim world, god knows I have, but some of the commentary on this issue shows an unwillingness to accept the idea of Muslims as possible allies, betraying a deep emotional investment in the permanancy of Muslim atavism.

 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
Lance, you have definitely hit on a good point about the nature of deeply held Western attitudes toward not only Muslims but any non-Western or non-Japanese society.

May I point out a certain parallel in this discussion regarding the moderates of the Muslim world and our actions or lack thereof to date. Almost everyone on this blog that I have seen demanding action (or further action) from moderate Muslims, or even questioning whether such a creature exists, has been extremely vocal about the MSM representations of the situation in Iraq. You have been almost universal in your condemnation of the media and the left for negative reportage of the Iraq war and its aftermath. A common argument revolves around the idea of the administration setting goals, meeting them, and then having war critics move the goal post, criticize the military and administration, and demand further action. Is this not EXACTLY what you are doing to moderate Muslims?

Anytime we speak up and, in some cases, risk reprisals for doing so, you demand more. Anytime a new organization of moderates is formed, you say not enough. Whenever best-selling books are published (see Nonie Darwish, Asma Hassan, and Irshad Manji), you say "Where are these supposed moderate Muslims that we hear so much about?"

I ask you to look at the criticisms that you level at the MSM and the anti-war movement and then look at your own attitudes toward moderate Muslims. Is this a double-standard that you support or is it perhaps time for an attitude change?
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
I ask you to look at the criticisms that you level at the MSM and the anti-war movement and then look at your own attitudes toward moderate Muslims. Is this a double-standard that you support or is it perhaps time for an attitude change?
Omar, why is it the anti-war movement has no trouble getting its message out whether picked up by the MSM or not and for some reason moderate Muslims simply aren’t able to do so (or claim not to be able to do so)?

And why does it take the MSM? Point me to websites in which large groups of moderate Muslim leaders have place their denunciations of Islamofascists, fatwas issued condemning them and the like. The Islamofascists certainly have no problem getting their views out there through their own websites.

Until there exists a large scale movement by moderate Muslims demanding Islamofascists cease and desist misusing the name of Islam you’re going to continue to hear the same criticism. It is not the responsiblity of the MSM or the US to get the word out for them ... it is theirs, if they’re really concerned about the radicals "hijacking" Islam.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ, I think you’ve missed part of the point here (maybe the whole thing). Let’s think about the nations that large groups (15 million +) of moderate Muslims live in. Malaysia, Indonesia, India, sub-Saharan Africa, etc. Do you honestly think launching a major web campaign (or, heck even a WEBSITE) is really something that they can just wake up one morning and decide to do? Do you think most of them even HAVE internet access?!? Oh, sure you’ll find internet cafes in New Delhi, Bali, and Jakarta but a lot of the population is rural and impoverished. They can’t just cough up 20 bucks or whatever for a couple of hours of internet access. The anti-war groups in the West don’t need MSM coverage; they have billionaires backing them so they can set-up all the websites, rallies, and think-tanks that they need. Apples and oranges here financially speaking.

Regarding fatwas : many of the more respectable religious scholars and leaders do not believe more fatwas are the answer. In fact the Ummah is having something of a small-scale skirmish over the idea that too many people feel qualified to issue fatwas. Fatwas aren’t even binding unless they come from a source you happen to respect and acknowledge. Even then, it’s up to the individual to decide whether to comply with it or not. You are making the analogy between fatwas and something like a papal encyclical or proclamation. This is just not accurate. Again, apples and oranges.

I’m going to list several sources of moderate Muslim views here. These are well supported groups and individuals. No doubt once I list them, you’ll claim that they aren’t mainstream or this just isn’t enough. Again, you’ll have said "Here is the goal post." I’ll once again meet the standard that you set and again you’ll go right ahead and move that post then claim that I haven’t done enough. In the interests of courteous dialog, however, here goes.

http://www.aicongress.org/index.html
http://www.libforall.org/index.html
http://freemuslims.org/
http://www.arabsforisrael.com/home.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19444
http://village.flashnet.it/users/fn034463/index.html
http://www.noniedarwish.com/
http://www.irshadmanji.com/
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?z=y&ath=Asma+Hasan

Sorry about the last link, but I can’t seem to locate Ms. Hasan’s website so I chose to instead list all of her books.

 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
Until there exists a large scale movement by moderate Muslims demanding Islamofascists cease and desist misusing the name of Islam you’re going to continue to hear the same criticism. It is not the responsiblity of the MSM or the US to get the word out for them ... it is theirs, if they’re really concerned about the radicals "hijacking" Islam.
McQ:

You have repeated several times that it is not the responsibility of the U.S. to assist moderate Muslims. That may well be true, but it isn’t the point. There are many things that nations do in their self-interest that they probably shouldn’t have to do (in a purely just world). You don’t seem to be suggesting that it is improper for the U.S. to engage in such activities, only that it shouldn’t have to do so. It seems like common sense to me that the U.S. would take steps to assist moderate Muslims and thereby undermine the Islamofacsists. Aside from the argument that the U.S. shouldn’t have to do such things, what is your objection?
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
the big point is US are the real terorists. NO doubt about it.
 
Written By: ze
URL: http://
"It seems like common sense to me that the U.S. would take steps to assist moderate Muslims and thereby undermine the Islamofacsists."

Witness Iraq. Witness the so-called preferred strategy for dealing with Iran.

As for moderate muslims they no doubt exist. They are losing the battle to the Islamofascists for hearts and minds. The lack of demonstrations aginst the terror acts proves it to be so IMO.

 
Written By: Khepri
URL: http://www.perennialwisdom.com
the big point is US are the real terorists. War criminial. Truth lier. Killer. NO doubt about it.
As long as they continue theirs "pathetic" political will, the world is not safe nor peace.

 
Written By: ze
URL: http://
Mumble. Lier. Criminials. Mumble. Terorists. Not Safe. NO doubt. Mumble.

"Pathetic"
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
That’s because the fascists in Spain, the Nazis and the Japanese didn’t claim their brand of totalitarianism was divinely given.

Actually, the so-called divine origins of the so-called Aryan race were deeply embedded in German fascism.
 
Written By: Suetonius
URL: http://
If you’re close to the blunt end of a poorly-defined lable, it’s easy to assume that others are wrongly including you in their categorization.

To make my point a little clearer try this:

I think that the term Americanidiots accurately describes those who a government uses to support its goal of overturning foreign powers to secure energy supplies under the guise of "spreading democracy". Moreover, I honestly don’t understand the objection to the term. Not only is it accurate, but it has the salutary effect of separating and isolating the educated, globally-informed Americans from the mainsteam idiots in America. No one is saying that all Americans are stupid, only that the Americanidiots are. What’s wrong with stating the obvious?

Not very nice is it?
 
Written By: Stephen
URL: http://
Not very nice is it?
Yeah, it’s all about being "nice", isn’t it Stephan?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
No, you’re wrong, it’s not ALL about being nice.

It’s also about being accurate, don’t you think MacQ? (sic)
 
Written By: Stephen
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider