12:36 pm - ISLAMIC FASCISTS!!
I'm all for slamming the president when he says or does something quite retarded. I think if anyone deserves hard scrutiny its our leaders (that's what makes this country great, taht we can scrutinize!) But I'm more than willing to turn the gun over to commentators when they blow things he's said way out of proporation. This whole "controversy" over Bush's use of the term "Islamic Fascists" is driving me nuts. Check out the following article. I've taken some selections from it where I think the author is a little off his base:
US Muslims feel Americans' prejudice
As Muslims, we use "Islamic ethics" to mean ethics based on Islamic teachings that guide our behavior. Similarly, "Islamic art" draws its inspiration from Islamic teachings that discourage certain types of art (immodest imagery or certain life forms). When the president uses "Islamic fascists," it conveys that fascism is rooted in Islam...
What?! That line of reasoning is completely off the nut. Saying that "Islamic facists" conveys that facism is rooted Islam, is (to use his own example) like saying that "Islamic art" conveys that art is rooted in Islam. This is a matter of how the terms are nested. Islamic art is a subset of the the greater concept that is ART, Islamic fascism is a subset of the greater concept of FASCISM. An Islamic artist is an artist who is also a Muslim. An Islamic fascist is a fascist who is also a Muslim.
...or fascism that is inspired by Islam.
Perhaps it is. So what? People can read into just about any ideology and draw from it justification for fascism. That doesn't mean that Bush is proclaiming that Islam necessarily goes hand-in-hand with facism.
These terrorists hold an ideology that is best described as fascist. And it does seem that they draw a certain amount of inspiration (or at least justification) from their religious beliefs. But to condemn them is not condemning all of Islam.
This is the way the Muslims will see it, regardless of what George W. Bush may claim he really means.
I totally understand that in their language convention, that could has subtle meanings to the contrary, but people need to have a little sense and put things into the proper context of the speaker. And don't you just love that little barb at the end "may claim he really means."
I think Bush is a twit, as are most of our political figures (Repub and Dem, alike), but I don't think time should be wasted harassing him over details like this when there are other problems going on elsewhere in our political system.
People are just looking for insult.
They had that recent interview Ahmadinejad and he stated that they use words and debating rather than bombs "like Bush". The interviewer (Mike Wallace) never challenged him! All they do is blow things up unless they are flying planes into buildings.
And Ahmadinejad is loon, anyway you cut it. He's spews rhetoric and when rhetoric fails, he just barks inflamatory nonsense. But he is just a puppet -- a distraction from the real danger.
But I don't know if I would call him a loon. That interview shows me he's more intelligent than we give him credit for. He gave the Western media exactly what they wanted. I swore some of the comments were straight out of Howard Dean's playbook.
But I am curious why these questions were not asked:
a) you have one of the world's largest oil reserves, making it in fact less economical for you to use nuclear power. Why would you want to do so?
b) you mentioned to your people to prepare to rule the world. That sounds rather imperialistic and not the words of one who simply wants to live in friendly peace with his neighbors.
c) if you believe the bombs are not of this era why is Iran the leading supplier to such entities as Hamas and Hezbolleh. If dialogue is truly the answer....why doesn't your administration consider dialoging with Israel?
*sighs*
And Israel's decision has pretty much killed almost any possibility of negotiating. I sadly think the world will find itself poured as sand thru the shifter. :-(
I also am a Glenn Beck listener. He can either make me laugh so much I am crying or scare me. As I am sure you heard Glenn say he has always felt Iran is the 'head of the snake'.
Which makes you wonder, how would it go negotiating with a cobra? Those snakes turn from calm to deadly in a split second.
My only suggestion is you leave it there and let it starve to death and when all is done you make a nice gucci wallet.
- Saj
In reality, I'm sure his milliant lunacy is as much a manufactured ruse as is Bush' piousness. Whatever gets the masses moving!
:O
And yeah, unless they are reporting on the local apple pie bake-off or Sparky the little three-legged dog that "just won't give up", they are worthless.
I find it odd, with race always such an issue in our nation and constantly brought up by the media that race should not be used as a label, that the media so quickly jumped on labelling the bomb suspects in Indonesia, Phillipines, etc. as "asian men". And the entire article I read failed to mention ties to extemist islam.
Every time I comment about terrorists and islamic/muslim extremists/fascists. I get accused of racism and for being critical of all muslims.
I truly wish these people would take a Logic 101 course.
All S is P
Some S is P
Some S is not P
No S is P
Islami-fascist is a Some S is P argument.
There are christian-fascists, christian-extremists. For example: the I.R.A. would fall under what I would label christian extremists. Who used terrorism and extreme actions & behaviors to acheive their goals.
To condemn the IRA and other christian-fascists (such as religion based neo-NAZI white supremacist groups) in no way condemns all christians. Nor even the majority of christians.
IMHO, the only way that such a term is critical of Islam as a whole would be if all muslims thought that way. I do not believe they do. I hope to God they do not. And well, having met several who do not - my fears are allayed.
That said, I put a lot of blame on the common muslim. When a handful of individuals bombed abortion clinics and murdered doctors, sure a few christians were in agreement. But most labelled the deed evil and murderous and wrong. They still disagreed with abortion. But expressed without recourse that those acts were unacceptable.
This is not what I see in muslim community. There are few will make such statements. In almost every interview it is sympathy for the perpetrators or an admission of wrong conjoined with a statement of understanding and support. To the vast majority of Americans we cannot understand the silence of the muslim American community as a whole. That is perhaps the one aspect that I would condemn Islam overall with.
The #1 best person for defining an islamic fascist is a muslim who being familiar with their religion can stand and say "that is not my Islam, that is wrong and twisted".
- Saj
I truly wish these people would take a Logic 101 course.
Our country (perhaps humanity at large) is reasonally-retarded. I think Logic and Civics hould be required courses along side Literature and Science.
The #1 best person for defining an islamic fascist is a muslim who being familiar with their religion can stand and say "that is not my Islam, that is wrong and twisted".
And that is still heavily influence by interpretation. Some people would say that Islam logically leads to violence and facists (as per a recent discussion I had with
And there is variance in interpretation. That said, overall, the Judeo-Christian belief does not advocate the "death to all infidels" concept. (Although some have taken such practices into hand.) In fact in even the old testament much was made regarding treating the stranger with well-being. And much was made about being just.
I mean, how many christians even realize that God in his Judaic laws of the Old Testament instituted mandatory social welfare? were you aware of that?
The old testament law dictated that you would only run thru once in harvesting your field. What remained was to be free for the poor and needy to scavenge. I think this institution of God to be rather interesting in two regards. a) it was a mandatory welfare system for the needy at the cost of the wealthy (those who owned fields) b) it was not a mere handout. It was understood there was impoverished. But no one was expected to walk up and hand you dinner. You were allowed to go and harvest/work for your meal. And that is what has always jibed right with me. I've always felt that a homeless individual has a duty and obligation to assist in their own provision within their means. But that it is the responsibility of society to provide assistance according to the needs and according to the abundance of wealth.
Anyways, I'm going off on a tangent. Although there are some passages in the Koran and seemingly strong arguments made that the religion itself is geared toward violence. And the fact that it's history is marked by such lends some credence. I am inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt and hope.
That said. If such is incorrect, than we have a grave issue. There are approximately 1.2 billion muslims in the world. If even 0.1% of said group are extremists/fascists than we have 1,200,000 potential violents (for lack of a better word). The fact of the matter is that in certain regions polling suggests that number might be much much higher. As much as 5% and in some regions approaching 50%.
I want to hope that such is counter-balanced by muslims in the Western and Asian world where it is my hope that the percentage is closer to 0.0000001% but the evidence seen around the world puts that hope into a very marginal category. The recent plot attempt involved muslims who are British citizens. In Deerborne, Michigan you have thousands of muslims marching on parade shouting "Hezbolleh is our Army!" etc. This in the United States.
So I do not know, but I am hesitant to condemn and entire group especially when I know peaceful exceptions.
That said, I think the inclination to extreme fascism is higher in Islam than any other religion. Even if you look at some of the worst case parts of history with christianity (Crusades, Europe, Spanish Inquisition, etc.) most of those were in fact more tied to "political" power struggles. In fact, the Pope even excommunicated all the members of one crusade, the one that also sacked Constantinople. It was clear by their brutality toward their fellow christians that the crusade action was motivated more so by greed & power than religious ferver. That said, dogmatic beliefs of any sort can lead to brutality toward one's fellow man. Look at some of the horrors done in the name of science on part of the NAZI's. And treatment of african ethnicities. Or the Soviet Union's & China's brutality with regards to their dogmatic atheism.
So that is where my inclination is that the danger is when one's dogmatic belief reaches a point where you no longer simply disagree, nor even seek to implement social change thru legal or social-political means. But choose the use of force, fear, death and brutality to enact one's opinion. It is at that point that one's dogmatic beliefs have brought the individual into a state of fascist terrorism.
- Saj
Exactly!
When the president uses "Islamic fascists," it conveys ... fascism that is inspired by Islam.
Exactly. "Islamic fascism" is "fascism inspired by Islam". It is not "Islam, which obviously leads to fascism", or "Islam, the core of which is fascist". It does not, as the writer ignorantly asserts in the column, "equate the religion of peace with the ugliness of fascism".
The hint is in the fact that the statements was purposely qualified! If Bush had omitted the fascism part, then there would be cause for controversy. Sadly, blowing this whole thing out of proportion can only add to the divisiveness, and for no good reason.
Re: Exactly!
It's emotionally-charged fluff rhetoric like this that drives un as a culture (unnecessarily) apart and shits all over good logic and reasoning.