Posted on 08/14/2006 4:07:11 AM PDT by unionblue83
In his first response to the major terror airline scare in London, President Bush said on August 10, “The recent arrests that our fellow citizens are now learning about are a stark reminder that 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.”
His use of the term “Islamic fascists” spurred attention and controversy, especially among Islamists.
At a pro-Hezbollah rally in front of the White House, on Aug. 12, the crowd (in the Washington Post’s description) “grew most agitated when speakers denounced President Bush’s references to Islam.” In particular, the president of the Muslim American Society, Esam Omesh, won a massive roar of approval when he (deliberately?) mischaracterized the president’s statement: “Mr. Bush: Stop calling Islam ‘Islamic fascism.’”
Nihad Awad of the Council on American-Islamic Relations called the term “ill-advised” and “counter-productive,” repeating CAIR’s usual conceit that violence in the name of Islam has, in fact, nothing to do with Islam. Even more preposterously, Awad went on to suggest that we “take advantage of these incidents to make sure that we do not start a religious war against Islam and Muslims.”
CAIR’s board chairman, Parvez Ahmed, sent an open letter to President Bush: “You have on many occasions said Islam is a ‘religion of peace.’ Today you equated the religion of peace with the ugliness of fascism.” Actually, Bush did not do that (he equated just one form of “the religion of peace” with fascism), but Ahmed inadvertently pointed to the evolution in the president’s – and the country’s – thinking away from bromides to real thinking.
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
Nihad Awad of the Council on American-Islamic Relations called the term “ill-advised” and “counter-productive,”
And beheading people or blowing up innocent children isn't "ill-advised" and "counter-productive"?
The Perversion of Islam demonstrated once again
Slicing people's heads off while chanting religious ditties is what? Bush was right.
CAIR’s board chairman, Parvez Ahmed- your bullsh*t will fly in Manhattan, Boston and kalifornica, but it wont fly in the states/cities with people who possess common sense. We call a spade a spade. Islam is a murderous , savage cult and we are SICK OF IT!
"(1) This is hardly the first time Bush has used the term Islamic fascist (or Islamofascist); it has become a part of his routine vocabulary since his path-breaking speech on this subject in October 2005,"
Exactly. I've been saying this since the backlash against his use of the term started last week.
Personally, I agree with Pipes. It's not really the correct term.
The President has called Islam a religion of Peace. He was wrong. It is Satanism pure and simple. It needs to be driven from the face of this earth.
Depends on the meaning of "is".
BUMP
Truth hurts. Now go home and smash all your mirrors so you don't have to face the facts.
I have been going back and forth between Islamofacist and Islamist myself. I believe I agree with Mr. Pipes. I'll use Islamist. An Islamist is a practitioner of Islamism.
"Bush was right."
Not quite. He used two letters and one word too many.
That the protestors equate the actions of what the Pres. called 'islamic fascism' with islam is proof of who our enemy really is.
b.
If the shoe fits...
Congressman Billybob
Latest article: "The Democrat Party - 1828 - 2006 - R.I.P."
Please see my most recent statement on running for Congress, here.
Very good link!
"Distinguishing between Islam and Islamism
June 30, 1998"
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/954
Thanks!
Certainly, the term "Fascist" is familiar to Americans; however, American ignorance of the history and of movements within the Muslim world is appalling. Otherwise the President could use "Islamist", "Salafist" or even introduce the Western term "nihilist" to describe the enemy we face.
Yeah, President Bush, there's no need to be redundant.
I'm glad you've finally gotten off that "religion of peace" claptrap though. You're finally starting to catch up.
The enemy is the world-wide forces of imperialist Islam.
There are different levels of enemies among them, but they all, in the end, support the same thing, whether it's the out-of-the-closet jihadi or the Arab "campus intellectual" promoting Islamist causes.
Whether it's the most wild-eyed Islamist spouting his hate-filled filth in a mosque in Detroit, or that nice middle-eastern guy that runs the convenience store and has such cute kids, they all want the same thing for western civiliation.
What they expect of us, is complete submission to Islam or death. Which makes Muslims, one and all, our potential mortal enemies, because face it, we Americans ain't going to go along with that peacefully.
As for the ones already amongst us - I believe that it will not be long before we realize that we cannot peacefully coexist with them any more than one could endure pitching his tent on a colony of fireants.
I leave you to draw your own conclusioons.
When the President said "Islam is peace," Nihad Awad of CAIR, a declared supporter of Hamas, was standing right next to him. I guess that wasn't enough for Awad, LOL.
Whether or not "Islamic fascists" is the correct term to describe the Islamic terrorists, it is a heck of alot better than talking about a "war on terror." And, let's face it, the word "fascist" has very negative connotations for most Americans and Europeans. Putting "leftist" or "communist" after the word "Islamic" would not have the same effect. I'm really glad that Bush is openly linking radical Islam to terrorism.
Too bad something big didn't go BOOM there!
I'm not sure that 'Islamist' conveys the meaning the President is attempting to convey to the general public as does 'Islamist fascist.' The point of the term is that these groups are attempting to destroy existing Middle East national boundaries and unite the territory under one governmental system on the basis of what they believe is a cultural/religious unity in the past.
He has linked radical Islam to terrorism for longer than he's used the term islamofascist.
We are actually in a war with expansionist Sharia.
Though islamist is more accurate, it isn't understood by the general population, and they don't make the distinction between islam and islamist.
Adding fascists gives it more punch and adds an identifiable negative term. Radical islamists? or islamic extremists? terrorist islamists? I've been working on the right name (unsuccessfully), too.
Maybe jihadist is the simplest and most accurate term.
Esam Omesh's statement may not be a mischaracterization, but an admission: perhaps Mr. Omesh regards the actions of our enemies not as an expression of a fascist tendancy within Islam, but as an expression of Islam properly understood.
Islamism, Islamofacism, Salafism, Wahhabism, Jihadist, Khomeinism...etc., it's all pretty much the same thing. In todays world it's politcal oppression dressed up in religious drag. They have to resort to violence, it's the only way their ideas gain any traction, their ideas certainly don't.
And that's why they WILL/ARE losing
I agree with Pipes:
"I applaud the increasing willingness to focus on some form of Islam as the enemy but find the word fascist misleading in this context. Few historic or philosophic connections exist between fascism and radical Islam. Fascism glorifies the state, emphasizes racial “purity,” promotes social Darwinism, denigrates reason, exalts the will, and rejects organized religion – all outlooks anathema to Islamists."
Fascism and militant Mohammadism are both evil, but for different reasons.
However, in common usage, fascism seems to be a generic insult against governments, idealogies, or individuals that don't meet with one's approval (as in "The American fascist running dogs oppose Chairman Mao's glorious revolution", or "Principal Skinnard is a fascist", or "Fascist Pig!".)
"Islamic Fascists" really rather a misleading name for the Enemy, but it sure beats "Terror".
It's ok for Muslims to kill each other in the Middle East like there's no tomorrow. It's not ok for a Muslim to kill another Muslim while in the uniform of a non-Islamist army. Does that about covers it?
Daniel Pipes nails it - ping!
At least the German-American Bund had to decency to disband (whether voluntarily or with US government help) when the shooting war started.
There are some tendencies within radical Islam (true Islam) that run on course with the Nazi version of fascism. Islam tends to re-write history/religion to put itself in place of the existing dogma as did Hitler with the Biblical re-writes and the Nazi church. Islamonazis version of the state is the caliphate which, when implemented (past) in Spain and other areas, is held in the same esteem as the Fatherland was. Muslim society represents feudal society, I suppose, more than it does social Darwinism but it definitely denigrates reason (e.g. Muslim art, science, literature or the lack thereof specifically), and rejects all OTHER religions. Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem were pals as well, even though it was probably the Jewish Question that brought them together.
The term "Islamist" is too polite to describe the murder and totalitarian aims. Instead of the technical correctness the historian Pipe's seeks, I would go with the term that conveys the correct message and has impact on listeners. In that Santorum and Bush have it right - islamic fascists.
Ain't that the truth!
I agree "Islamist" is too polite. Islamic fascists nails it.
Frankly speaking, I don't think it's the highest priority right now to polish the name.
You can call them either Islamic Fascists, Jihadists, IslamoNazis or Islamo Communists. The key is to recognize that Jihadi Islam is the driving force behind most of the terror around the world either in combination with other totalitarian ideologies (i.e. Nazism, Communism, Marxism-Leninism, etc.) or stand-alone.
Here's a great blog post that discusses Bush's usage of the term, Islamic Fascist. A must read!
http://catholicpublius.blogspot.com
Yes, I read the blog--very interesting and analytic. However, I think any acknowledgement of Islamic nature of the Global Jihadi Terror network is fine with me without going too much into the semantic detail.
Did you see the article Pipes wrote on "Sudden Jihad Syndrome?"
http://thestilettoblog.com/2006/08/11/on-the-cutting-edge--sudden-jihad-syndrome.aspx
Yes, and I agree with his conclusions. This is THREAT profiling and the libs can call it whatever they want. When the group in question represents the highest percentage of offenders, then they should be profiled.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.