Islamic Fascism

The North Carolina Conservative ^ | 8/26/2006 | Joel Raupe

[Prospero]

No valid religion is about suicide and/or killing other people's children

An interesting point, though religion is generally pushed off in the realm of the subjective as are nearly every method of measuring a religion's validity.

More interestingly is your point about children. Taking the chance that someone will accuse me of being a fan, "Sting" wrote a song twenty years ago, at the hight of President Reagan's deployment of mid-range nuclear missles in Europe entitled "I Hope the Russians Love Their Children, Too."

One essential difference, very broadly speaking, between the clerics of "Radical Islam" and the same atheist priesthood running Soviet Russia is the former's unhesitating willingness to kill anyone and everyone.

Again, BROADLY SPEAKING, an examination of Islam and shows they really may not "love their children, too."

[ExSES]

No valid religion is about suicide and/or killing other people's children.

In a display of "Orwellian Logic" (one of many in the islamic "play book", the Koran condemns suicide but is interpreted to ignore this admonition when it is a "Martyr" involved in the act. In addition, their killing of children (whether their own or others) merely accelerates a "believer" into paradise or..., eliminates an "infidel" who is "an abomination in the eyes of Allah"!

At some point in time, the west will learn to deal with the islamic mindset in a manner which accomplishes both parties' interests...

Islamists seek death as a means of being "rewarded" in paradise so, their deaths (by the millions) will please them and..., eliminate their threat to western civilization!

[livius]

You are absolutely right, Islam is the only word that needs to be said.

However, since my earlier post, I have been thinking about this, and I wonder, if the President feels he needs to add another word to make the idea of Islam=enemy understandable to people, if the term "Islamic totalitarianism" might do. It is, after all, a totatalitarian system, seeking to impose itself; neither the definitions for fascist nor communist states fit it precisely, but "totalitarianism" is broad enough to cover this type of Mass Movement.

The only problem is that it's a long word and not very catchy as a phrase for the evening news...

[oyez]

I know of a case where an American adherer to this Eastern faith over heard an associate say "There are no moderate Muslims." Instead of defending her religion, she went to HR. As a result, a valuable employee of 36 years left the company.

[RightWhale]

That's not true.

[Biggirl]

In time, and it is NOW, the full truth has to be told. Islam has been at war with the non-Muslim world for 1450 years. It is not playing into the hands of the terrorists, it is simply stating very much in the open what we have been thinking the last 5 years. Those that are not doing the fighting will often support those that do.

[Biggirl]

Another case of "playing the victim." The real victim is the one who had to leave after 36 of employment.

[Biggirl]

One exception : Islam.

[oyez]

That situation could have been better used, but someone had to pay. So there was negative results and negative attitudes created. Poor job by HR.

[livius]

Sadly, our institutions will take the side of a Muslim any day. I suppose it's because they consider Muslims to be a "minority," and hence protected. The Muslims are finding out that all they have to do to silence criticism is complain that they are offended minorities. Even without threatening to behead anybody, they can make people afraid to even discuss them.

[backtothestreets]

Our thoughts are much alike.

When we think of theocracy, we most often reach back in history to the Holy Roman Empire, the Vatican and the Catholic Church. We could also list the early American colonies founded by one Christian denomination or another. In these instances the religion was paramount to government, so indeed was the authoritative institution in those societies. They also had a clear and present head, much like a monarchy. Islam has no such head.

The history of Islam is riddled with strife. When not externally with a non-muslim nation, internally amongst themselves. This is due to the absence of a single head. Islamic clerics issue opposing interpretations of Islamic law with no authoritative overview, and thus no accountability.

If the terrorists attacks and conflicts of these past few decades had been carried out by Roman Catholics our response would be targeted at the Vatican because we recognize it as the head, or base of Catholicism. Islam lacks such a singular head or base. I purposely used the Roman Catholic Church in this example as it has a comparable worldwide population to Islam, but is differentiated in that it cannot pursue a planned course of world domination by violent conquest without suffering the possible loss of its head or base.

Lacking a true head or base, and because Islam can easily find justification for violence based on the edicts of its clerics for any cause, it is the whole of Islam that is at fault.

In WWII, our enemies were primarily Germany, Japan and Italy. Our military was unleashed to defeat these entire nations, not just the leadership or their military. We can have no lesser goal in fighting Islam. Islam is at war with every people and nation they come in touch with, be it the USA, India, Thailand, Israel, Russia, the Philippines, Europe, and numerous African nations. Those Islamic nations not in direct conflict with neighbors have ongoing internal strife brought about from edicts issued by clerics opposing whatever form of government exists within those nations presently. The death and barbarism can never end because there is no single authoritative head.

A side note about communism and Islam, actually two side notes. The invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR gave birth to al-Qaeda because communism was so hated by Islam for being a godless form of government. Islamic nations that found reason to embrace relations with the USSR never embraced communism, but did so out of necessity to acquire military support.

Lastly, during the Cold War our enemy was most commonly defined as communism, not Russian communist, Chinese communists, Polish communists, or German communists. The enemy was communism itself, just as our enemy today is Islam itself.

[backtothestreets]

We must keep a wary eye on Pakistan. Pakistan has nukes, missiles with a range 4 times those of Iran and Korea, is home to Osama bin Laden, hosts the most al-Qaeda training camps, has by CIA estimates between 10,000 and 50,000 militant al-Qaeda jihadists, is involved with the longest lasting current militarized border dispute (with India), and has regained its eminence as the number one trafficker of illegal opium drugs, the profits of which finance both the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan and al-Qaeda schools and training camps. The recent peace pact, last week, between the Pakistani government and Pakistani tribal warlords protecting Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda is very disturbing.

Our history of propping up dictators in Islamic nations has always come back to haunt us, and there is no reason to believe our alliance with Pakistan will offer anything different.

[onyx]

Thank you for your erudite post. You said it much better than I, but we're on the same page and neither of us are wearing tinfoil hats!

[backtothestreets]

Your term, "Islamic totalitarianism" is much more suitable and definitive.

[Vision]

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur'an should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth"

--Omar Ahmed, Chairman of the Board of CAIR (Council of American Islamic Relations), San Ramon Valley Herald, July 1998

[308MBR]

Exactly. We are at war with Islam. So why do we not deport these idiots immediately under the Sedition Act?

Come on. We can learn Arabic from several good sources that don't involve keeping these fools around.

[livius]

Actually, the Protestant churches were the ones that tried to set up true theocracies (where the secular government is run by the religion and members of the clergy). Catholicism has always had a very clear distinction between the leader of the secular state and the religious authorities, and has endured much persecution when secular leaders (such as Henry VIII) attempted to take over religious authority.

There have been times when the State and the Church have worked together, and these times have never been good for the Catholic Church, because the State always wins. The Spanish Inquistion, for example, which was originally intended to be an internal disciplinary activity aimed at rooting out tendencies that had crept into the Church in Spain during its Islamic captivity, as well as immoral practices particularly among the clergy, was transformed into a State-sponsored persecution because the Church relied upon the State for certain administrative things and thereby gave itself into the power of the State and its politics.

However, in Christianity, these things are fundamentally separate, and even modern Protestants do not hark back to Cromwell and wish they were members of a state and church like his, which were one and the same. That is because theocracy goes against the nature of Christianity. Even Protestant Christianity, which does not have a temporal head, rejects the idea of a state controlled by religious authorities.

But Islam has been a theocracy since the beginning. It is a syncretist cult that took bits of Jewish ritual law and the concept of the "prophet" from Judaism, some historical figures and the concept of multi-nationality from Christianity, and its black rock at Mecca and demonic concept of a remote, unpredictable god that must be placated at all times by bizarre bloody acts from Arab paganism. Islam requires the imposition of sharia and in fact also rejects the concept of the secular state that it has been forced to accept. I think that unless we understand that Islam wants to impose itself on the totality of human life - because that is its nature, not a corruption of it - we are being fools.

Of course, one look at Islamic societies will tell you how well this model functions! Interestingly, as you point out, it is riddled with strife - but that's because the nature of Islam is such that if it becomes more moderate (from contact with non-Muslim societies, for example), the more orthodox, who actually have the support of Islamic scriptures, rise up and overthrow the moderates. That's what we're seeing right now, but that's what we've seen for 1400 years.

Islam doesn't have a head (although the direct descendants of Mohammed do have primacy), but I still believe it could be destroyed by destroying Mecca because that's where its cult-object is. On the other hand, bombing the Vatican and even killing the Pope would be upsetting, but have no effect upon Catholicism. This is because the Pope is not an object of worship and another Pope would be elected; the main office of the Church could be (and occasionally has been) established anywhere; and while the loss of the symbolic significance of Rome would be sad, it would not destroy either Christianity in general or the Catholic Church in particular. But I think if the Muslims lost their black rock with the hole through the middle and the strange vagina-shaped silver lips around the hole - well, the entire religion would vanish as if its people had been released from a wicked enchantment.

[livius]

Ooops - I should have added, btw, that I think it's highly unlikely that we would ever do this (destroy Mecca). And the Muslims know this, too.

[backtothestreets]

Had I my way, that black rock might be the only thing that remained, albeit somewhat melted and in scattered pieces, and no one with an urge to visit it, or any other Islamic shrine. I would do to these as the Taliban did to the Buddhist symbols in Afghanistan in the days leading up to 9-11.

[livius]

Sounds good to me. I seriously think it will be the only way to put an end to Islam. Sort of like in the Lord of the Rings - the thing must be destroyed in order to save goodness and civilization.