August 11, 2006

IF ONLY THEY WERE FASCIST:

Bush: ‘Nation Is at War With Islamic Fascists' (NEDRA PICKLER, August 11, 2006, Associated Press)

President Bush said yesterday that a plot to blow up multiple flights between Britain and America shows "this nation is at war with Islamic fascists."

"This country is safer than it was prior to 9/11," Mr. Bush said from the airport tarmac here, where he was appearing at events focused on the economy. "We've taken a lot of measures to protect the American people, but obviously we're not completely safe. ... It is a mistake to believe there is no threat to the United States of America."

The president laid the blame for the foiled attack squarely on Al Qaeda-type terrorism. "This nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation," he said, his remarks carried live on television.


The biggest problem with Islamicism is that it is totalitarian--a la Nazism or Communism--rather than just authoritarian, like fascism.

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 11, 2006 8:00 AM
Comments

"Fascism" fits the bill just fine.

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at August 11, 2006 9:04 AM

Yep.

Posted by: jefferson park at August 11, 2006 10:04 AM

Hopefully. Because if true it won't matter if they eventually do take over in a few places.

Posted by: oj at August 11, 2006 10:27 AM

Actually, Marxism would fit even better. Either way, we'd be well advised to stop making fools of ourselves fumbling through the Koran or trying to draw links with Saladin and realize Islamicism was born largely in Europe, like all the other fun isms. The fact that it is led by Westernized, middle class dissidents with no particularly strong religious background before their "click" moments should be a clue. I suppose the Khmer Rouge were just the ultimate expression of traditional Cambodian culture?

Posted by: Peter B at August 11, 2006 3:50 PM

Islamophobes can't face that their own culture produced it.

Posted by: oj at August 11, 2006 3:56 PM

I love John Quincy Adams disection of the 'Islamicism' of his time. With a little style update it could have been written yesterday afternoon. I know, Osama is really a Jacobin, not a Muslim.

Posted by: Tom C.,Stamford,Ct at August 11, 2006 7:03 PM

peter- With all due respect. One doesn't need to search the Koran to determine the simple, historical reality thet Islam is political. It demands that Islamic 'law' govern society. Regardless of what oj says, seperation of mosque and state is impossible where Islam is dominant. It was the first total system employing classification people according to their religious attachments, as opposed to 'race' or class, in order to determine their position before the law. Attaturk's secularization of Turkey is a rather new phenomenom and the jury is still out.The earliest western, secular totalitarian, Napolean, understood the power of Islam as a means of concentrating power. One could posit that Islam itself was the earliest prototype for totalitarianism.

Posted by: Tom C.,Stamford,Ct at August 11, 2006 7:34 PM

Tom:

OK, so a billion people (and growing)can never be trusted to choose democracy or separation of church and mosque and will remain forever our mortal enemies. I assume you are bitterly opposed to the war in Iraq as a hopelessly naive waste of time born out of a failure to comprehend Islam?

BTW, Attaturks secularization pre-dates democracy in about 80% of Europe. Is the jury still out on them?

Posted by: Peter B at August 11, 2006 8:25 PM

peter-that's not what I said. Cultural muslims and fundementalist, orthodox, literalist Islam are two different issues. The failures of the Islamic world have tended to create 'back to the roots' revivalist islamic movements and the roots are a problem. people are people and should be distinguished only by their actions.Islamicist political groups are becoming a larger factor in Turkey,malaysia, morocco etc. everyday.If people choose free, open and democratic systems, they should be applauded.Equality before the law and respect for all faiths should be part of those systems and that is not the case wherever Islam dominates.Why do you think that's the case?

Posted by: Tom C.,Stamford,Ct at August 11, 2006 9:18 PM

Though, oddly enough, there is separation in nearly every Islamic state and mosrt Muslims live in democratic Islamic states. You're trapped in your own head.

Posted by: oj at August 11, 2006 11:09 PM

They're not Islamic States if not governed by sharia law. There is no seperation under shariah. Muslims and non-muslims are treated as seperate classes under shariah. The practice of religion other than Islam is severley restricted under shariah.

Posted by: Tom C.,Stamford,Ct at August 12, 2006 4:20 AM

Tom:

Because, unlike you, I'm not thinking in terms of "systems", but of decent societies controlled by family-focussed middle classes. I am not arguing that Islam has nothing to do with the mess, but that Western totalitarianism has been transposed onto it with a resulting lethal cocktail. The same thing happened to Arab nationalism in the 50's and 60's (Why do you think secular Baathist Syria and Islamic Iran are so chummy these days?). I don't believe that Islam makes this inevitable and I am fatigued by amateur Western Koranic scholars hellbent on proving it is so and presenting Islam itself as darkness and the West as light despite the slaughters of the last century and the social dissipation it is undergoing now.(Do you know that in many places, especially the West, the larger number of converts to Islam are women?)

In Europe in 1939, there were only four stable democracies--Britain, France, Sweden and Switzerland--and there was hardly a democratic tradition outside. Do you think "the jury is still out" on democracy in Europe? Do you see a firm foundation for liberal democracy in the Old Testament?

If you insist on measuring Muslim societies by their formalistic adherence to the principles of the American "system" you will meet a lot of unnecessary resistance and cause a lot of unnecessary alienation. The West should be resolved to prove to Muslims that Islamicism will enslave them and ultimately fail--bloodily if not otherwise--, not that they are all the basket cases of humanity unless they abandon their faith. That's a leftist objective best left to the tranzis and human rights stormtroopers.

Having said that, I fear we are a war or two away from any resolution unless we all chip in fast and send Orrin out to recognize a whole bunch of states. ??

Posted by: Peter B at August 12, 2006 6:45 AM

They all have Islamic Law.

Posted by: oj at August 12, 2006 7:47 AM

islamic law is stupid.Discuss.

Posted by: Tom C.,Stamford,Ct at August 13, 2006 12:23 AM
« FAVORABLE COVERAGE IN AN ALT WEEKLY?: | Main | IF THE LEFT WERE IN POWER WE'D NOT BE INVADING THEIR PRIVACY, RIGHT?: »