First let's define fascism, then we can go from there. What's the criteria? If the criteria is the 'fourteen points of fascism', then those 'Islamic fascists' Bush is referring to are a fegment of his imagination. As for Shari'a law, it is civil law based on interpretation of Islamic texts, is subject to change, and varies from one society to another. It's not 'uniform' by any means.
Really, this is why America supports Israel. We are afraid of Islamic culture. America is afraid of a world where women and men have to go to separate beaches etc. We don't want to cover the heads of our women. We do not relate to any of it at all. It is an alien culture and we are deathly afraid of it, even if it is based on ignorance. It is not going to happen here and "we" don't want it anywhere. We might respect it, but we will not accept it. We will have absolutely nothing to do with it.
Yeah, his war isn't enough to look tough on terror. You got to admit that his idiot way with words have worked nicely with the electorate. Kerry would've "bored" people to death by explaining that conventional war and terror don't mix.
So, not shockingly people see his use of words as on purpose for political gain. I however, think it shows a deeper meaning and it seems to show a bit about his true nature, and belief that we are in a cultural war, on one side, the civilized western world, and on the other, led by Islamic fundamentalists, is the rule of Islamic religious edicts or laws. I see Islam as going through major growing pains, just like most other religions, where the fanatical fringe element is taking over - much like the Spanish Inquistion etc. The problem is that most moderates will sit idly by on the sidelines while fanaticism grows, causing a major rift within the religion itself. Everyone knows that the Muslim faith is no better or worse than the Christian faith, but right now the radicals are gaining in popularity within the faith. That has to stop or it could be a bloody next 100 years until it moderates itself. DD
It won't stop DaDa until the root causes are addressed and dealt with. As long as there is a consensus amongst Muslims that their lands are being occupied, and their people oppressed by foreign powers, there will always be resistance in one form or another. In the mind of the majority of Muslims around the world, Western colonialism and imperialism is still alive and well; the colonial era isn't over just yet.
I completely understand, and I myself have come to that conclusion a long time ago. I understand what's involved here. Many in the West (not just Americans, btw, the Europeans are even more concerned about this) fear that Muslims want to take over the world. However, it is an assertion of fear that has little foundation in reality.
Look at this picture below and tell me how Lebanon is an Islamic facist theocracy? For cris' sake, just ignore the giant smoke in the back.
I have never understood the real difference between the Far Left (Communism) and the Far Right (Fascism). The first is a dictatorship in the name of the people. The second is a dictatorship in the name of some individual. Both are absolute rule of an elite few, and there is no freedom in either system.
I think you've hit upon the answer. Let NOW fight the wars. All they have to do is convince the females of the world to close their legs until men lay down their arms and embrace tolerance and peace. Oops, I replied to the wrong post.
The stupid thing about this is that it didn't clarify things one bit. The whole idea behind "identifying the enemy" was that fighting "terrorism" is a nebulous concept - how do you determine when you've won, etc? "Islamic fascism" is no different. You can't be at war with an idea - you are at war the proponents of that idea. Al Queda, for example. But this doesn't clarify one bit who exactly the enemy is.
Here's a poll that attempts to measure an overall American attitude to Muslims, it's somwhat relevant to this topic... Poll shows prejudice against Muslims Americans admit to favoring IDs and other restrictions for them. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/living/religion/15253634.htm Almost 40 percent of Americans acknowledge having some prejudice against Muslims, but those with Muslim acquaintances are more likely to show favorable attitudes, a new USA Today/Gallup Poll shows. Thirty-nine percent of Americans asked to “honestly” assess themselves said they have “at least some feelings of prejudice against Muslims” while 59 percent said they did not. Respondents were fairly evenly divided about whether Muslims are respectful of other religions, with 47 percent agreeing and 40 percent disagreeing. There was clear disagreement about whether Muslims are too extreme in their religious beliefs, with 44 percent saying yes and 46 percent saying no. A substantial minority, 39 percent, of Americans favor more strict security measures for Muslims than other U.S. citizens, such as requiring Muslims to carry a special ID; 59 percent said they would oppose such a requirement. Forty-one percent favored Muslims undergoing more intensive security checks at U.S. airports, while 57 percent opposed such action. When comparing feelings based on whether respondents personally know a Muslim, pollsters found dramatic differences. Forty-one percent said they personally knew a Muslim. Nearly a quarter of those who said they know a Muslim — 24 percent — favored a special ID for Muslims; 50 percent who do not know someone of that faith favored the special ID. Ten percent of those who know a Muslim said they would not want a Muslim as a neighbor, compared to 31 percent of those who did not know one. Some of the findings were based on interviews of a random national sample of 1,007 adults between July 28 and 30 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Others were based on a half-sample of 500 national adults and had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.
Islamic Facism is a perversion of the Islamic religion to achieve terror and violence...simple as that. The enemy is clear...Different names: Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaida...Islamic Facists!
A more appropriate term might be "Muslim militancy", then. But Bush has gone beyond that, he is talking about a 'Caliphate' in an almost derogatory manner that will certainly prove unpopular to the average Muslim.
Tiger, What about the reverese of this, where the Muslims in France and England and in Canada are looking to institute their own version of Shia law? Isn't that a form of imperialism? (Not technically I know, but it is a major problem in the west). Western societies are open and embrace a diversity whereas a lot of the Muslim theocracies do not. I am sure if everyone stayed in their own regions that none of this would be a problem, but we are becomming more and more of a global community, and a lot of the Theocratic Islamic laws are adhorent to the western world. DD
I don't think your term fits. Those that utilize terror in conjuction with religion do so as to empower usage and influence of the religion...But by doing so, they pervert the true peaceful significance of the Muslim religion...We know that Facism is a radical totalitarian philosophy that combine some specific characteristics....Further, Totalitarian regimes maintain themselves in political power by means of secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics. Islamic Facism is a political movement in that politics as an astute poltical professor once told me is simply who gets what, when, where, and how....But the political process is diabolical, much as groups such as the KKK and their political efforts for example... (www.wiki reference on totalitarianism) Iran is a perfect example of a government which exemplifies the characteristics of "Islamic Facists"...They are a totalitatrian regime which DOES maintain a secret police to influence ideology of any wayward, propaganda is apparent, restriction and regulation of free discussion is definitely hindered, and a widespread use of terror tactics is DEFINITELY in play with the logistical, monetary, and ideology based support of terrorism...Hezbollah is an extension of Islamic Facists, much as all those with like characteristics...May they all Die in Hell!@ btw, a far cry from the average muslim free of the perversion of these fanatics...
most muslim countries aren't immigrant melting pots like western europe and the us/canada are. so shariah law wouldn't impact day to day lives of non muslims as much as it would non whater christian sect is the law of the land in the west. secondly there aren't many muslim theocracies in the world. saudi sure. iran sure. after that? what else is there? iraq in a few years perhaps. but they're too busy killing each other to care about law yet. look like it or not. american incursions into the mid east have facilitaed the growth of 'islamist' groups. hezbollah, hamas. ikhwan, all the groups in iraq, popularity for iran. kuwait's parliament i believe has 21 of the 50 seats and kuwait is actually the furthest along in democracy at least in the gulf. its the neo-con folly. moderates become irrelevant because in the face of israeli and american soldiers killing arabs on tv, discussing the need for more freedoms seems a bit trivial. khatami was dealt his knock out punch by the US's axis of evil speech. the list goes on.
There's a lot of extremism in Europe, so that's definitely a problem they need to address. In Canada, on the other hand, a Shari'ah court is being proposed to settle certain issues according to Islamic law (divorce, dowry, inheritance, etc.), and it's completely voluntary, not to mention that other religious minorities have been afforded a similar accomodation. Canadian law allows for it, and there is oversight, and their decisions could be overturned by secular Canadian courts, who have the final say. If someone says, "Europe has to be ruled by shari'ah law" or tries to violently bring it about, they must be dealt with. As a Muslim or a Christian or a Jew, you have to accept the 'law of the land' wherever you live. If you don't like it, leave. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with Western societies -- such as Canada -- that allow for certain accomodations to their religious minorities, as long as it's a voluntary measure that doesn't breach their own laws.
