August 10, 2006
"This nation is at war with Islamic fascists"

As Matt noted, President Bush said this morning:

The recent arrests that our fellow citizens are now learning about are a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists ...
This is a turning point of clarity in what has too long been euphemized as the "war on terror". Of course many Muslims don't side with the fascists. Tomorrow's Muslim "peace march" in Seattle should also provide clarity. What messages will the signs and leaflets convey? To what extent are the local Muslim communities on the side of pluralism and freedom and to what extent do they side with the fascists -- including Hizbullah, Hamas, the Iranian regime and the Iraqi death squads? If any readers watch the "peace march", please send us your reports and photos -- or post your report in the Public Blog.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 10, 2006 11:17 AM | Email This
Comments
1. So glad he used that term because it's true. I'm so sick of the media spinning that it's just South Asians and not even mentioning religion. Phbt!

Posted by: ferrous on August 10, 2006 11:31 AM
2. 98 percent of Americans wouldn't be able to define fascism without first opening a dictionary.

Posted by: DCExPat on August 10, 2006 11:35 AM
3. This is a good first step. Moving away from the ambigious fight with "terror" is an important rhetorical distinction. However, a better term than Islamic Facist would be Islamic Jihadi.

But this is indeed a turning point. It's time for the world to demand that Islamic leadership admit and be held accountable for their active support and dissemination of violent hatred. Wherever Muslim clerics are allowed to preach hatred, Islamic Theocracies must put an end to the practice and explicitly state that they do not condone or support this activity. And Mosques should be monitored for increase in the spread of violent hatred, just a Iranian Nuke facilities are monitored for their proximity to completion of a functioning nuclear bomb.

The ideological dissemination of Islamic hatred is far more potent and dangerous than any other philosophy in human history.

Naming the enemy is the first step. Knowing our own resolve to confront the enemy is the next.

Posted by: Jeff B. on August 10, 2006 11:42 AM
4. Stefan, I'll do my best to capture photos of tomorrows "peace march", particularly the signs. It ought to be very interesting and I expect the event to be rather different than what will be reported in the MSM.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 10, 2006 12:00 PM
5. 'bout time GWB identified the enemy.

Bill,

Any bets on how many signs condemn Hizballah for targeting Israeli Arabs? My money is on ZERO.

Posted by: JCM on August 10, 2006 12:29 PM
6. I won't take that bet JCM.

I do imagine some signs decrying the slaughter of "innocent women and children" in Lebanon. And as you said zero signs mentioning what happens to innocents in Israel when Hezbollah fires their ball bearing filled rockets.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 10, 2006 12:38 PM
7. If the primary message of the peace march is that "Islam is a religion of peace", then I will know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are lying.

If the primary message is an unequivocal denunciation of Islamic terrorism (i.e. no exceptions or excuses), then I will be willing to listen.

I'd be willing to put money on the former rather than the latter.

Posted by: Doug on August 10, 2006 12:55 PM
8. watch--like the illegal alien marches recently in Seattle, there will be tons of patriotic American flags; also, my guess lots of 'traditional dress'-why? photos id's of participants in papers and nearby residents' cameras? maybe i'm jaded, but recent events in Britian make me cautious as well as our tragic Seattle shooting;

sorry, guys--it's YOUR 'bretheren' doing it 'round the world; stop it or face the world's suspicion; police your own and root them out; THEN i'll listen;

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 10, 2006 01:07 PM
9. I would add that it may be wise to avoid the Northgate area that day. These folks seem to have no problem blowing themselves up and taking others with them.

Posted by: Jeffro on August 10, 2006 01:44 PM
10. Islamic jihadism, Bin Ladenism, Islamic militarism...whatever name you put to it, it is an out-and-out evil and needs to be destroyed, period. I cede to no one in my hatred of Islamo-fascism -- and I'm a Muslim. I was the chairman of my college Republicans during September 11th, and spent the next few months crashing candlelight "peace vigils" and speechifying on America's right to kill any and all terrorists and terrorist sympathizers, wherever they are.

That being said...Muslim-Americans should be given the benefit of the doubt. By all accounts they have been instrumental in both the domestic and global war on terror. Practially every Arab linguist working for the NYPD is an Arab-American, and most of them are Muslim. Many of the international "charity" networks were exposed with Muslim-American help. In many ways, Muslim-Americans have been the first line of homeland defense -- and unheralded at that. But its a hell of a story, if anyone wanted to tell it.

I'm saying this because the tenor of the posts is, in my opinion, inappropriate. Don't think that someone is not a full-blooded American just because they have ethnic clothes on. My mom wears saris and shalwar kameez to all sorts of events, and she was clapping loudly when Zarqawi bought it.

Look, Muslims definitely need to speak up more and denounce militant Islam. More need to loudly support the War on Terror (or the War on militant Islam, as I would prefer it called). But Muslim-Americans should not shoulder the burden of the loony left and Islamists world-wide. Wait and see what the peace march looks like tomorrow. You may be surprised.

That being said, if its filled with anti-American screeds, anti-Zionist rants and apologies for terrorists, then I will be the first to boo.

Posted by: Razeeb Hossain on August 10, 2006 04:34 PM
11. I can't agree more Razeeb. I'd like nothing more than to see tomorrows's marchers openly condemn radical muslim terrorism and show support for Israel.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 10, 2006 05:22 PM
12. "Razeeb's" (or whomever) post SOUNDS sensible;

maybe true, maybe bait; before i drink at the calm river's edge, i'm wary of the croc floating silently nearby; like the skittish impala at the water hole in a Natl. Geographic segment

for me? too much recent world event histories, (India, London, Bali) patterns, & particular same groups for me to let my guard (or 'hardware') down now;

vigilance, people; let's just see...walk the talk, you 'connected groups' because 9-11 still stings in my heart as if yesterday;

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 10, 2006 06:29 PM
13. Razeeb hits the nail on the head. It is their choice. May we all be proud if the choice is for America.

Posted by: iconoclast on August 10, 2006 07:19 PM
14. Its about time the President laid it out straight. You can't make war on a tactic.

We didn't declare this war, but we must win it. And we can't win it if we don't define it for what it is.

The fatwah's that were issued for this Jihad directly quote the Koran, which makes their war with the west a religeous obligation for all Muslim men, rather than a political call to arms. I haven't heard of any Muslim scholars who will state this isn't so.

These fatwah have the same religeous authority as did the call to Crusade by the Pope with Chritians in the 11th century by Pope Urban II.

England didn't go to war against the Turks in Jerusalem then, just those Christains who answered the call. Its the same with the 911 hijackers and the fanatics in the mid-East and elsewhere we are now at war with.

Not all Christians went on Crusade and not all Muslims go on Jihad, but the majority of Christians approved of the Crusade (at the time, if not now). I would probably not be too far off if I guessed that most Muslims support the Jihad.

Posted by: deadwood on August 10, 2006 07:51 PM
15. Deadwood: That seems a very sensible analogy.

Posted by: Peggy U on August 10, 2006 08:14 PM
16. (doing my best liberal imitation)
Well how DARE the U.S. and UK violate their rights to peacefully plan out mass murder! This is just another Bush-Hitler scheme to take away our freedoms! These 21 individuals were just members of the religion of peace and had hurt no one! You are all just paranoid! There IS no danger from terrorism. Books, not bombs!!! (spins off stool still shreiking....)

Posted by: Misty on August 10, 2006 08:27 PM
17. Once in a while Bush says something that resonates- but not often enough. Wish he would stop calling it the war on terror - that sounds goofy. The war on Islamic Jihadists would sound much better.

He has it right about not negotiating with the Islamo-thugs, because they will never honor an agreement. Next, how about stopping the political correctness in this war on Islamic Jihadists - like abiding by the Geneva Convention in this war - we don't need to because they don't represent any country, nor do they abide by it and they never will !

Posted by: KS on August 10, 2006 09:35 PM
18. I was reading along thinking this might be okay until I read, "That being said...Muslim-Americans should be given the benefit of the doubt. By all accounts THEY have been instrumental.........."
What part of THEY is Razeeb trying to differentiate himself? I don't know about anyone else, but when I am defending a group that I am closely affiliated, I use "we".

Posted by: Elaine on August 10, 2006 10:09 PM
19. The use of the term "-fascists" here is historically and philosophically wrong. The Fascists were originally a coalition between Mussolini's basically socialist party and elements of the industrial right in Italy. Even Hitler and his National Socialist Worker Party, also using industrialists, thought Mussolini's movement dumb.

However nasty and murderous the Moslem extremists are, they bear no resemblance to the socialist or socialist worker party dominated "fascist" movements in Italy and Germany in the 1930s. Resemblances to the psychopath, Hitler, might bear some discussion.

Posted by: jcub on August 10, 2006 11:51 PM
20. jcub: You are hopeless.
Fascist has more than one meaning. YOu are trying to dilute the true evil of the terrorists. Adding Facist to the front is appropriate. The meaning is that they are evil. Facist were evil. Yea I know to you big business is evil. The PC crowd is what got us into this mess. Call a spade a spade. Dont try to say things so no ones feelings are hurt. The time has come to stop arguing about words to do action to stop terrorism. As long as you are busy finding excuses not to call them facists could they be sneaking up behind you and stab you. That is what happened to some Tourists in Jerusalem early yesterday. Appeasement doesnt work espicially using language to make them sound not so bad. You are as bad as the EU who can not call a terrorist group terrorists. THey call them humanitarians. Terrorist are terrorist no matter how good they make some of them look. JUST like a member of the MOB is a criminal eventhough he may the most upstanding citizen in the City for show. HE is still a criminal.
Thankyou for the source of the name but it is meaningless because it was used correctly. Why do you ask. Because Nazi's and Facists went to the Middle east after the war. They taught the arabs to hate and fight. They are the root of the problems we see today.

Posted by: David Anfinrud on August 11, 2006 01:13 AM
21. >The fatwah's that were issued for this Jihad directly quote the Koran, which makes their war with the west a religeous obligation for all Muslim men, rather than a political call to arms. I haven't heard of any Muslim scholars who will state this isn't so.>The fatwah's that were issued for this Jihad directly quote the Koran, which makes their war with the west a religeous obligation for all Muslim men, rather than a political call to arms. I haven't heard of any Muslim scholars who will state this isn't so.

Well, as one who is reading the Qu'ran, let me offer a few other selections of that text that contradict your theory.

In the second Sura, the Qu'ran says, "Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve".


The 29th Sura, verse 46 proclaims, "Do not dispute with the People of the Book save in the fairest way; except for those of them who are evildoers. And say: 'We believe in what has been sent down to us and what has been sent down to you. Our God and your God are one and to Him we are submissive.'"

In the Qu'ran, the term "People of the Book" is used to refer to Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

The use of Wahhabistic Islam as a means of control is quite different than the practice of Islam by millions of people the world over. The constant lumping together of all Muslims as low down, evil terrorist apologists (or just plain terrorists) is the very pinnacle of ignorance. Unless I am wrong, the people who commited the single greatest act of aggression against the Jewish people were, you guessed it, Christians.

Also, please stop using the term anti-Semitic to mean anti-Jew. Semitic refers to a family of languages that includes both hebrew and arabic, so in effect an arab being an anti-semite would be anti-arab.

Posted by: Aaron on August 11, 2006 01:31 AM
22. Yeah Aaron, I'm sure the Koran can quoted out of context to say many more things, both positive and negative regarding how Muslims and rest of the world interact.

That is not the point I was was making though. The point I was making is that the Koran can and is being used to justify the Jihad against America in particular and the west in general, and the majority of the Muslim world appears by all objective evidence to support it.

By the way, I didn't even mention the term anti-semitic. Your point however is meaningless in that the meaning of term has long been established and no matter how much parsing you do with it, you are not likely to change its usage in the English language.

Posted by: deadwood on August 11, 2006 07:53 AM
23. Elaine's right; I am an American Muslim (a term I should have used rather than Muslim-American), so I should have said "we". Except, of course, that I don't speak Arabic, don't attend mosque frequently and have not been instrumental in breaking up terror cells. I was born in the States, am married to a Christian woman, drink to excess, support Israel and vote Republican. Unfortunately, those characteristics don't give me a tremendous amount of credibility in the Muslim community. Any contribution I have made to the struggle against militant, political and fascist Islam has come in the form of criticizing the insanity of the religion I was born into.

I don't think Islam is a "religion of peace"; anyone who tells you that is clearly whitewashing distant and recent history. And I don't think worldwide Islam should be given the benefit of the doubt. But the struggle against Islamic fascism is not going to be on strength of arms alone, and American Muslims are a resource to be recognized and cultivated in the ongoing war.

And I agree with Deadwood on the use of anti-semitic. While the semitic peoples includes Arabs as well as Jews, people rarely, if ever are referred to as anti-semitic if they espouse anti-Arab views. For all intents and purposes, anti-semitism is anti-Jewish. But semantics do not change the fact that the Arab world and much of the wider Muslim world is rife with hatred of Jews.

And by the way -- Razeeb is my actual name. Maybe I should construct a clever pseudonym instead?

Posted by: Razeeb on August 11, 2006 09:09 AM
24. Elaine

I have read that the initial lead to the airplane plot was provided by a Brit Muslim immediately following the subway bombings. Not a muslim-american, but part of the anglosphere at least. Hopefully we will see the same sort of thing promoted at today's march.

Posted by: iconoclast on August 11, 2006 09:46 AM
25. A little clarity on today's "peace march" in north Seattle from the P-I:

"marchers take to the streets to demonstrate silently for peace in Lebanon".

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 11, 2006 11:07 AM
26. A little clarity on today's "peace march" in north Seattle from the P-I:

"marchers take to the streets to demonstrate silently for peace in Lebanon".

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 11, 2006 11:07 AM
27. Ack! Sorry for the double post!

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 11, 2006 11:09 AM
28. If by "peace in Lebanon" the marchers truly mean "Israel must stop their defensive actions", then that is a true shame. Here's hoping (too optimistically, I suppose) that there are at least as many anti-Hezbollah statements as anti-Israeli statements. But even that grim parity seems unlikely.

Posted by: Razeeb on August 11, 2006 11:27 AM
29. I just came back from the "peace march" on Northgate Way.

There wasn't exactly a crowd lining the route. It was just me, the local press, and a lot of police. There might have been more people gathered at the mall. I'm lousy at estimating but I'd guess there were 300 to 400 marchers.

A big banner saying "end the suffering" led off the march. Most of the signs said things like "will work for peace", "true islam = peace", "cease fire now", "stop Israel, stop terrorism" and "hurricane Katrina = Israel". Those last two I don't expect to be shown by the MSM. There were no signs condemning Hezbollah.

It was billed as a "silent" march but when the main body of the march was directly in front of me a man shouted "Allah Akbar!" Luckily I'd heard that all the marchers had supposedly been patted down for explosives prior to the start.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 11, 2006 03:37 PM
30. Our Joke of a President just leaned on Israel to ceasefire against the #1 Terror organization in the world. We are in no War on Terror ... all of you who insist we are ... shut up.

We have lost Mauritania to Al Queda, S. Lebannon to Iran, Somalia to Al Queda, we are giving away Afghanistan by setting up exactly what Bin Laden wanted name Sharia Law. Where is our next butt kicking going to from?

Well at least we can get back to prosecuting our soliders in Camp Pendleton and not be distracted by all these battlefield losses.

Posted by: John McDonald on August 11, 2006 08:37 PM
31. It bears repeating:

liberal~john, it is obvious that the nuances of politics are way beyond your reasoning abilities. Why don't you go back to buggering small animals and leave the important stuff to the rest of us...

Posted by: alphabet soup on August 12, 2006 09:15 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?