"Stop the war now" - I'd rather die tommorow

[padren]

What baffles me is how some on the left fear and even hate the "Christian Right" with a passion in this country but give Islamofascism a pass.

 

Jim, who exactly is giving Islamofascism a pass?

 

Is it a higher percentage of people on the left than the percentage of people all around that believe Jesus will return to Earth in a UFO?

[aguy2]

where was ww3?

 

It was generally known as the 'cold war', and lasted from 1946-82.

aguy2

[Pangloss]

1982? Why 1982?

[Jim]

The problem with making such threats is that in order to be credible, we need to be able to follow through with them. Right now, it doesn't look like we can.

 

It was credible to Libya, although I wonder whether Libya regrets its move now that the policy is being undermined. Unfortunately, we have a dynamic similiar to that which occurred with the Tet offensive where our public reacts to every bomb blast killing Iraqi's lining up to be in the military and ignores far greater act of courage which put those poeople in that line in the first place. Millions of Iraqi's courageously stand up to this terrorism but they are given short shrift and pushed out of headlines by simple acts of destruction. Perception is starting to trump the reality on the ground.

 

In any event, what is the alternative to the Bush Doctrine? To permit terrorist groups to hide in countries like Afghanistan and Iran, cook up plots and WMDs and launch them with impunity against the US? We have no choice but to become credible as we initially were to Libya.

 

Jim' date=' who exactly is giving Islamofascism a pass?

 

Is it a higher percentage of people on the left than the percentage of people all around that believe Jesus will return to Earth in a UFO?[/quote']

 

We've even seen on this board where there is a reluctance to even use the term Islamofascism. We had several posts lambasting the Christian Right but when similiar characterizations are used against Islamofascists, there is a backlash.

 

Starting with Gingrich and culminating in Blair last week, I think many are realizing that there is a need to identify the enemy. Here's Blair who, I think, is brilliant:

 

And what changed policy was September the 11th. That changed policy. But actually, before September the 11th, this global movement with a global ideology was already in being. September the 11th was the culmination of what they wanted to do.

 

But actually, you know -- and this is probably where the policymakers such as myself were truly in error -- is that even before September the 11th this was happening in all sorts of different ways in different countries.

 

I mean, in Algeria for example, tens and tens of thousands of people lost their lives.

 

This movement has grown. It is there. It will latch onto any cause that it possibly can and give it a dimension of terrorism and hatred.

 

You can see this. You can see it in Kashmir, for example. You can see it in Chechnya, you know? You can see it in Palestine.

 

Now, what is its purpose?

 

BLAIR: Its purpose is to promote its ideology based on a perversion of Islam and to use any methods at all, but particularly terrorism, to do that. Because they know that the value of terrorism to them is -- as I was saying a moment or two ago -- it's not simply the act of terror, it's the chain reaction that terror brings with it.

 

Terrorism brings the reprisal; the reprisal brings the additional hatred; the additional hatred breeds the additional terrorism, and so on.

 

In a small way, we lived through that in Northern Ireland over many, many decades.

 

Now, what happened after September the 11th -- and this explains, I think, the president's policy but also the reason why I have taken the view and still take the view that Britain and America should remain strong allies, shoulder to shoulder, in fighting this battle, is that we are never going to succeed unless we understand they are going to fight hard.

 

The reason why they are doing what they are doing in Iraq at the moment -- and, yes, it's really tough as a result of it -- is because they know that if right in the center of the Middle East, in an Arab Muslim country, you've got a nonsectarian democracy -- in other words people weren't governed either by religious fanatics or secular dictators -- you've got a genuine democracy of the people: How does their ideology flourish in such circumstances?

 

BLAIR: So they have imported the terrorism into that country, preyed on whatever reactionary elements there are to boost it. And that's why we have the issue there.

 

So they have imported the terrorism into that country, preyed on whatever reactionary elements there are to boost it. And that's why we have the issue there.

 

That's why the Taliban are trying to come back in Afghanistan. That is why the moment it looked as if you could get progress in Israel and Palestine, it had to be stopped.

 

That's the moment when, as they say there was a problem in Gaza, so they realized: Well, there's a possibility now we can set Lebanon against Israel.

 

Now, it's a global movement. It's a global ideology.

 

I see a reluctance to think of the problem in these terms because it is wrapped up in religion and we have been conditioned to be tolerant in such m atters.

[Jim]

There seems to be some confusion in this thread on which particular' date=' current 'campaign' in progress, constitutes the current 'war'. Normally a 'war' of any significance is comprised of 'campaigns' that can be concurrent, sequential, or in large scale 'wars', both.

 

The current world situation would seem to indicate that the world is involved in a global conflict of sufficent scale to be called, in truth, ww4; or some similarilly discriptive terminology.

 

Do you think someone should do a poll?

aguy2[/quote']

 

Aguy, I had a thread on Gingrich's recent reference to this conflict as "WWIII." I said at the time that I thought that language was significant and I see it echoed in the Bush/Blair news conference.

 

The conflict is global and it is life in death but you are right that it is not being fought as a traditional war.

[CPL.Luke]

I figured you would say the cold war but it should be noted that at no point did the war involve all parts of the world simultaneously, and I would object to it being called a "ww3"

[Pangloss]

We've even seen on this board where there is a reluctance to even use the term Islamofascism. We had several posts lambasting the Christian Right but when similiar characterizations are used against Islamofascists' date=' there is a backlash. [/quote']

 

I'm afraid you're on your own with this one, Jim. No offense, but this seems like Fox News Channel territory to me, and kinda beneath you. I can't even accept the premise that the term is an accurate one, so how can I accept the criticism that we're "reluctant to use it", as if it's the accurate term and therefore only logical to use? It's like two erroneous arguments rolled into one. (chuckle)

 

Like I said, no offense intended. Maybe I'm just not getting where you're coming from here.

[aguy2]

I figured you would say the cold war but it should be noted that at no point did the war involve all parts of the world simultaneously, and I would object to it being called a "ww3"

 

I don't think ww1 or ww2 involved all parts of the world simultaneously either. Archie Bunker, et al called ww2 "the big one" with a degree of accuracy, and hopefully, insofar as intensiveness and scale, it will remain so.

aguy2

[ecoli]

I don't think ww1 or ww2 involved all parts of the world simultaneously either. Archie Bunker, et al called ww2 "the big one" with a degree of accuracy, and hopefully, insofar as intensiveness and scale, it will remain so.

 

Both these wars invovled theatres in many different countries and continents. WWII especially, it was fought in Europe, Africa, South Pacific, Asia, etc...

[Saryctos]

@Pangloss, he maeans the liberalisms of this board tend to lean towards the concensus that islam is the "religion of peace" and that anything else is just biggotry aimed at islamics. which imo is nonsense, islamofascist gov't is trying to force its way across northern africa and into spain(basically anywhere it "used to be") there is a nae for this idealogy, just can't remember it atm.

 

also, the cold war involved MANY different countries simultaniously. for a long time first response capability meant placing nukes within an arms reach of the intended country, which meant diplomatic support from countries within non-balistic range of the intended target. wester/eastern germany was always an unintended consequence of any war that started between russia nad the west, Guam/Cuba are almost equivalent in terms of close range nukes, and europe was a constant battle for the PR departments of either gov't. so the cold war involved plenty of countries simultaniously.

[walrusman]

We've even seen on this board where there is a reluctance to even use the term Islamofascism. We had several posts lambasting the Christian Right but when similiar characterizations are used against Islamofascists, there is a backlash.

 

I agree Jim. Time to call a spade a spade. Christianity had it's slaughter-fest in our history and now it's Islam. It's not a religion of peace, just read a little of the Koran yourself and you'll see what I mean.

 

Also, check out http://www.obsessionthemovie.com. Nice trailer. But it shows a mere snapshot of the rhetoric that's been coming from that part of the world for decades. Death to America. When Islam rules the world. They have twisted an already twisted religion and taken it the next step.

 

Remember, Hitler mesmerized his people. He won their hearts and minds and deceived them with propaganda. That's the EXACT same thing going on over there, only multiple countries in on the act. They learned from Hitler. Did we?

[Bettina]

I agree Jim. Time to call a spade a spade. Christianity had it's slaughter-fest in our history and now it's Islam. It's not a religion of peace' date=' just read a little of the Koran yourself and you'll see what I mean.

 

Also, check out http://www.obsessionthemovie.com. Nice trailer. But it shows a mere snapshot of the rhetoric that's been coming from that part of the world for decades. Death to America. When Islam rules the world. They have twisted an already twisted religion and taken it the next step.

 

Remember, Hitler mesmerized his people. He won their hearts and minds and deceived them with propaganda. That's the EXACT same thing going on over there, only multiple countries in on the act. They learned from Hitler. Did we?[/quote']

 

I never had a problem seeing Islam for what it really was. A militant, death loving, oppressive religion and I'm glad to see some here stepping up to the plate instead of calling people bigots.

 

Wait till they get their hands on a nuke....

 

Bee

[CPL.Luke]

While I agree that the current interpretation of islam is violent etc.

 

its important to remember that there is a difference between the religion and the current interpretation of it. Like Walrusman said the Christianity had its slaughterfest during the middle ages, and then it stabalised and became "relatively" peaceful in the modern era (at least I'm sure none of us would call it a violent religion now). I'm sure that over the course of several hundred years and maybe a profit (or massive secularization) it will stabilize.

 

I also think we need a new term other than islamofascism, I would be hesitant to seperate the two words entirely and just call it fascism because the regions fascist movements are based on islam to a large extent, with the leaders often creating a cult of personalaty proclaiming them as holy men. But islamo fascism has the ring of Fox news and shameless rhetoric.

[Dak]

I never had a problem seeing Islam for what it really was. A militant' date=' death loving, oppressive religion and I'm glad to see some here stepping up to the plate instead of calling people bigots.

 

Wait till they get their hands on a nuke....

 

Bee[/quote']

 

The only problem here -- as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, by many different people, ad nausium -- is that you fail to seperate terrorist muslims and non-terrorist muslims.

 

Many people interpret the torah to say that a phisical struggle of arms is the lowest 'jihad' that one can engage in, and one that should be avoided: learning, spreading the word of allah, and controlling your own less-than-desireable traits are all far more worthy endeavours. also, there's the whole 'you shouldn't kill people' teaching that a significant amount of muslims prescribe to.

 

Of course, there are an abundance of muslims that interpret these teachings differently, so as to allow the 'lets go blow up teh evil foreighners' attetude, and even consider it 'allahs will'.

 

every time al-quaeda strike, the muslim organisations of most countries publically speak out, condemning the terrorists and labelling them 'un-muslamic'. of course, i've no doubt that theres also a load of muslims going 'w00t!', but that's kinda my point -- islam is what the individual muslim makes it, and to label 'islam' as 'murderouse et al' is a tad unfair, considering the huge amount of muslims that condemn violence and murder, and specifically condemn the terrorists.

 

pretty much the same situation has existed, and to a lesser extent exists, with christianity. many did, and some still do, interpret it in such a way as to justify violence, oppression, etc. i think the bigger question is what leads people to a nasty interpretation rather than a non-nasty one, and espescially what causes islam as practiced in the middle east to apparently tend quite a bit towards violence.

[Skye]

Islamofascism may have some meaning, but at other times it is a farce. Remember that in many cases Islamists are in opposition to autocratic regimes, and often embrace democracy and popularism, as opposed to autocratic fascism. Hamas and Hezbollah are committed to democracy, rather than authoritarianism. While Gadaffi may have renounced terrorism and his nuclear ambitions, he's still an authoritarian figure. This is the real issue here, how to ensure that liberal democracy has a place in the Islamic world. What's the point of a bunch of Islamist democracies and secular dictatorships?

[Jim]

I'm afraid you're on your own with this one' date=' Jim. No offense, but this seems like Fox News Channel territory to me, and kinda beneath you. I can't even accept the premise that the term is an accurate one, so how can I accept the criticism that we're "reluctant to use it", as if it's the accurate term and therefore only logical to use? It's like two erroneous arguments rolled into one. (chuckle)

 

Like I said, no offense intended. Maybe I'm just not getting where you're coming from here. [/quote']

 

No offense taken.

 

My view comes more from Bernard Lewis whom even Slate has said ""is not just a historian, he himself is a historical figure [producing] groundbreaking work and lucid works of the highest order." David Landes of Harvard University wrote:

 

Muslims have the feeling that history has somehow betrayed them, and on no comparable issue is the historian's potential contribution more important -- the more so because the subject is plagued by ideological commitments, partisan blather, and the constraints of political correctness. People have shunned the topic for all the wrong reasons. All the more reason to be grateful for Bernard Lewis' interventions. No one knows the languages and motivations of the players, and no one is more reliable in the objectivity of his judgments.

 

I've quoted before this conclusion to his post-9/11 afterward to the book, "What Went Wrong: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East:"

 

For Usama bin Laden and those who share in his views – and they are many – the object of the struggle is the elimination of intrusive Western power and corrupting Western influence from all the lands of Islam, and the restoration of Islamic authenticity and authority in these lands. When this has been accomplished, the stage will be set for the final struggle to bring God’s message to all mankind in all the world.

 

But not all Muslims see the struggle in these terms. For growing numbers, the issue is not religion or nationality, not this or that frontier or territory, but freedom – the right to live their own lives, in a free and open society under a representative and responsible government. For them the prime enemy is not the outsider, be he defined as foreigner, as infidel, or as imperialist, but their own rulers, regimes that maintain themselves by tyranny at home and terrorism abroad and have failed by every measure of governmental achievement except survival. The numbers and influence of these freedom seekers are difficult to assess, since the public expression of such views is forbidden and subject to the direst penalties. They receive little help from those who should be their natural allies in the free world, notably those who present themselves as friends and advocates, but who prefer to deal with corrupt tyrants, provided that they are amenable, rather than risk the hazards of regime change.

 

One can only hope that, in time, the cause of freedom will triumph once again as it has already triumphed over the Nazis and the Communists. If it does not, the outlook for the Islamic world, and perhaps for the West, will be grim.

 

I agree that this language is more nuanced than the label "Islamofascism." However, it is easier to use the label than to requote this text in every post.

 

I've italicised the section of this work that speaks of giving, for want of a better phrase, Islamofascism, a pass.

[Bettina]

The only problem here -- as has been pointed out to you repeatedly' date=' by many different people, [i']ad nausium[/i] -- is that you fail to seperate terrorist muslims and non-terrorist muslims.

 

Many people interpret the torah to say that a phisical struggle of arms is the lowest 'jihad' that one can engage in, and one that should be avoided: learning, spreading the word of allah, and controlling your own less-than-desireable traits are all far more worthy endeavours. also, there's the whole 'you shouldn't kill people' teaching that a significant amount of muslims prescribe to.

 

Of course, there are an abundance of muslims that interpret these teachings differently, so as to allow the 'lets go blow up teh evil foreighners' attetude, and even consider it 'allahs will'.

 

every time al-quaeda strike, the muslim organisations of most countries publically speak out, condemning the terrorists and labelling them 'un-muslamic'. of course, i've no doubt that theres also a load of muslims going 'w00t!', but that's kinda my point -- islam is what the individual muslim makes it, and to label 'islam' as 'murderouse et al' is a tad unfair, considering the huge amount of muslims that condemn violence and murder, and specifically condemn the terrorists.

 

pretty much the same situation has existed, and to a lesser extent exists, with christianity. many did, and some still do, interpret it in such a way as to justify violence, oppression, etc. i think the bigger question is what leads people to a nasty interpretation rather than a non-nasty one, and espescially what causes islam as practiced in the middle east to apparently tend quite a bit towards violence.

 

Dak, I know I've been called on my comments before ad nausium, but I won't change my mind on how I see the Islamic religion or any religion that uses pain as a tool for advancement. Just because a majority of Muslims choose to ignore certain words of the Quran does not mean those words aren't there and as long as they are, there will be wars.

 

Yes, Christianity had its militant times using the sword, but the difference today is scarier weapons.

 

Bettina

[walrusman]

Dak - I always get that response. You automatically assume I didn't do any critical thinking and jumped to the first obvious conclusion. I'm not a sheep, Dak.

 

I know that the vast majority of muslims are peaceful. But, their religion isn't. It's oppressive and imperical in its nature. Islam is the only religion nuttier than Christianity.

 

Originally Posted by Dak

Many people interpret the torah to say that a phisical struggle of arms is the lowest 'jihad' that one can engage in, and one that should be avoided: learning, spreading the word of allah, and controlling your own less-than-desireable traits are all far more worthy endeavours. also, there's the whole 'you shouldn't kill people' teaching that a significant amount of muslims prescribe to.

 

I think you meant Koran. The Torah is Judaism. And that has been in there from the beginning and all of this fighting has been going on for centuries, so what good is that doing anybody? And "you shouldn't kill people" is a children's message. I have yet to hear a muslim tell me any of these suicide bombers will go to hell for what they did. That religion is wrong. What kind of thinking (brainwashing) doesn't punish someone who kills innocent people? Targeting women and children.

 

Religions and gods are man made fairy tales, and this particular tale was fabricated by oppressive, misogynistic spinsters.

[Jim]

I'm afraid you're on your own with this one' date=' Jim. No offense, but this seems like Fox News Channel territory to me, and kinda beneath you. I can't even accept the premise that the term is an accurate one, so how can I accept the criticism that we're "reluctant to use it", as if it's the accurate term and therefore only logical to use? It's like two erroneous arguments rolled into one. (chuckle)

 

Like I said, no offense intended. Maybe I'm just not getting where you're coming from here. [/quote']

 

Pangloss, as I thought about this today, I think you've proven my point. I don't say this combatitively and I agree it is not the "left" that gives Islamofascism a pass. I think what I meant to say is that most Americans do not even want to name it as such. In fact, to do so is Fox Newsish and even "beneath me," which I'll take as a compliment.

 

Most of us understand that we are facing a global ideology that would like to see chaos, death and destruction in America. This ideology has a religious component. It could be said that these people are no Muslims just as, I suppose, it could have been said that the people fighting in N. Ireland weren't Catholics or Protestants. But the fact remains that this ideology professes to be of Islam just as the IRA claimed to be Catholic.

 

If, then, it should be acceptable to say that the enemy is Islamic, the next question is whether it is acceptable to say they are fascist. Many Muslims aren't fascist and I'm not referring to them. Iran clearly is led by a theistic (Islamic) fascist government. I don't think it was beneath B. Lewis to wish for the outcome of freedom in such countries just as most in America wished for the liberation of the Germans and then the Poles, French, etc., etc. He drew a direct analogy to Nazism which IMO is entirely appropriate.

 

I would never label you as from the left and I have the utmost respect for you. However, I wonder if you haven't proven a larger point in the way you responded. There is an instinctive and laudable reaction to someone tarring another person's religion in this country. It's part of what makes our pluralistic society possible.

 

As has been said by others, I think we have to be accurate in framing the enemy in any war. We are not fighting a war against terror any more than we are fighting a war against any particular tactic. Wars are fought against enemies and this debate is about defining the enemy. If you have a better term, I'd love to hear it but we have to call them something, don't we?

[Pangloss]

I see a number of valid points there, and can't help but respect where you're coming from with it. But I guess I'm just not convinced that the label is accurate, or that naming it such constitutes an important part of the war against it. I can't say that you're wrong (I can't dispute your point or provide an alternative), but I can say with utter certainty that "reluctance" is NOT an accurate description of my feelings regarding the use of that word.

 

Maybe the best way to put it is to say that I feel it implies a foregone conclusion and sense of indispensability that I find dangerous and presumptive at this stage of the game. Maybe it's just the historian in me, crying out for the need for accuracy. But one thing I can tell you that it is *not*, and that is the centrist in me crying out for fairness. That ain't it at all; I got no problem with calling a spade a spade.

 

One thing is for sure: You've given me something new to think about, for which I'm always grateful.

[Dak]

@jim:

 

'islamofascists' just sounds wrong, like a plea to simply accept that they're bad (cos theyre fascists) without neccesarily using logic. 'islamopaedophiles' would be in a similar vein.

 

Not saying thats what you're doing, but it might account for resistance to it's use.

 

It's also historically inconsistant: the kkk, the nazis etc have never (afaik) been reffered to as christiofaschists, so i guess the knee-jerk reaction might be that 'if they're not christiofaschists, why islamofaschists?'

 

Dak, I know I've been called on my comments before ad nausium[/i'], but I won't change my mind on how I see the Islamic religion or any religion that uses pain as a tool for advancement. Just because a majority of Muslims choose to ignore certain words of the Quran does not mean those words aren't there and as long as they are, there will be wars.

 

islam is what is practiced. You are aware that the bible contains some non-too-pleasant passages, right? which people tend to ignore (or not: does the 'thou shalt not lay with another man' commandment make christianity oppressive and right-wing?).

 

i wouldn't argue that the bible and quaran are nice. but 'islam' implies all the people who follow it, not just the book, hence my objection to 'islam sucks'.

 

Yes, Christianity had its militant times using the sword, but the difference today is scarier weapons.

 

OK, look at it this way:

 

what do you think caused the christian nastyness, like the crusades, the burning of heretics etc? what do you think causes contemperary christian nastyness, like the kkk et al? what do you think causes contemporary predominantly christian countries, like italy and greece, to refrain from crusades and heretic-burning? and what do you think makes the majority of muslims in america, western europe etc to condemn the actions of the terrorists? what do you think causes middle-eastern islams to fight amongst themselves so much?

 

I think that is far more relevent to whether or not one is 'blood-thirsty and oppressive' than their religion is. most religions have freedom of interpretation... generally, homophobes interpret whichever holy text is nearest to mean that god hates fags too, whereas non-homophobes tend to interpret those bits differently; masogonists tend to interpret the bible/quaran to mean that men are teh best, and women should stay in the kitchen, whereas non-masogonists and women tend to have different oppinions on those parts.

 

I dont deny that putting forth the idea that 'god says this is true' can help influence others to a bad way of thinking, but, ultimately, i think the prevalience of 'blood-thursty, oppressive' incarnations of a religion is more dependant on the local society than the religion itself.

 

Dak - I always get that response. You automatically assume I didn't do any critical thinking and jumped to the first obvious conclusion. I'm not a sheep, Dak

 

the post wasn't aimed at you, so i dont see how you can infer from it that i assume anything about you.

[ecoli]

It's also historically inconsistant: the kkk, the nazis etc have never (afaik) been reffered to as christiofaschists, so i guess the knee-jerk reaction might be that 'if they're not christiofaschists, why islamofaschists?'

 

I don't think Christianity was ever as important to the Nazi's as Islam is to those in the Middle east.

 

And, as far as I know, the KKK are not really fascists. They preach White supremacy, but they don't really have other political aim, I think.

[Sisyphus]

Well, they do want a nation of Anglo-Saxon Protestants, with other races and religions subserviant. Religion is a big part of it. I don't know if that's "fascism," but I guess it illustrates that the word is overused to the point where its meaning (aside from the literal political party of Mussolini) is no longer entirely clear.

[Jim]

I see a number of valid points there' date=' and can't help but respect where you're coming from with it. But I guess I'm just not convinced that the label is accurate, or that naming it such constitutes an important part of the war against it. I can't say that you're wrong (I can't dispute your point or provide an alternative), but I can say with utter certainty that "reluctance" is NOT an accurate description of my feelings regarding the use of that word.

 

Maybe the best way to put it is to say that I feel it implies a foregone conclusion and sense of indispensability that I find dangerous and presumptive at this stage of the game. Maybe it's just the historian in me, crying out for the need for accuracy. But one thing I can tell you that it is *not*, and that is the centrist in me crying out for fairness. That ain't it at all; I got no problem with calling a spade a spade.

 

One thing is for sure: You've given me something new to think about, for which I'm always grateful. [/quote']

 

Pangloss, and you have made me feel that the term doesn't sit completely well. I don't see a problem with labeling this ideology as fundamentally Islamic but the "fascist" reference brings in Nazism which we all resist as part of some internalized application of Godwin’s law.

 

I do think we need to call the enemy something. Whatever we call it the blank in Islamo_______, I'm not sure it will be any less of a hot button than fascist. As you say, however, the goal is accuracy not "fairness" and I understand that the Nazi analogy is not complete.

 

 

 

'islamofascists' just sounds wrong, like a plea to simply accept that they're bad (cos theyre fascists) without neccesarily using logic. 'islamopaedophiles' would be in a similar vein.

 

No, the guys I’m talking about have tyrannical tendencies. They fuse religion and political power and pedophilia has nothing to do with any of this.

 

The founders of our nation understood that mixing religion and politics was a perilous mix and any accurate term should describe that this movement mixes religion with tyranny.

 

Not saying thats what you're doing, but it might account for resistance to it's use.

 

I think, probably, it's just resistance to going down the path that the term suggests coupled with the laudable tradition in Western democracies of tolerance.

It's also historically inconsistant: the kkk, the nazis etc have never (afaik) been reffered to as christiofaschists, so i guess the knee-jerk reaction might be that 'if they're not christiofaschists, why islamofaschists?'

 

If you read Mein Kampf you’ll see references to Christianity but I don’t think the thrust of Hitler's message was religious. Hitler cynically used religion where it suited him but religion was not the primary force behind his message. In fact, if you look at the table of contents for Mein Kampf, not one word directly relates to religion.

 

Likewise, the KKK uses Christianity but its hatred flows from racial bigotry which they, of course, partially justify with religion. If you feel like being slimed, take a look at the KKK’s web page and you’ll see, bottom line, their goal is political power to use for these purposes:

 

A. Become the leader of the White racialist movement

B. Strive to become the representative and driving force behind the White Community

C. Organize and direct white people to a level of activism necessary to bring about a political victory.

 

In Ireland much of the motivating force behind the terrorism was religious and we talked about the Catholic IRA. The problem here is that we have never had a cohesive Christian movement in modern history devoted to the establishment of a world-wide Christian theocracy by violent acts against civilians. If such a movement existed and emanated from countries which were tyrannical, I would call them Christiofascists... or Christio... something or other to do with tyranny; Christiodespots... Christiotheocrats; Christiocrats... Christiofreedomhaters.

 

I'm not sure an apt labeling of this movement would be any more comforting than Christiofascists.

 

All of this said, I agree that there are a variety of motivations behind Islamo .... er, the guys who were described by B. Lewis as follows:

 

"For Usama bin Laden and those who share in his views – and they are many – the object of the struggle is the elimination of intrusive Western power and corrupting Western influence from all the lands of Islam, and the restoration of Islamic authenticity and authority in these lands. When this has been accomplished, the stage will be set for the final struggle to bring God’s message to all mankind in all the world."

[aguy2]

Pangloss, and you have made me feel that the term doesn't sit completely well. I don't see a problem with labeling this ideology as fundamentally Islamic but the "fascist" reference brings in Nazism which we all resist as part of some internalized application of Godwin’s law.

 

Jim, thanks for the reference to Godwin's law, I like the man's analysis. According to the law we would have to declare pangloss the 'wiener' unless you can show that your analogy is complete.

 

What current states, with a muslim majority, would you classify as being 'islamo-fascist'? Syria would probably appear to be the closest to be on a fascist model, but even here if we had classified them as such, we probably would be finding the term to be a obstacle to peace, due to the fact that their help is needed in trying to find some solution to the current situation around Lebanon.

aguy2