No, I am not exaggerating. Click the pic, go to "last," and read backwards.
If you are not informed about this stuff, you will be made sick. If you are informed, you will be made mad, all over again.
Posted on 12/01/2005 3:58:34 AM PST by Witch-king of Angmar
Leave it to former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to invent a new term in the international political debate.
In a speech in the United Arab Emirates, she said it would be a mistake "to exclude Islamist parties" from the political debate in the Middle East "on the assumption they are inherently undemocratic or prone to violence."
She added, "The best way to marginalize violent extremists is to make room for as broad a range of non-violent perspectives as possible."
Therefore, we can assume from these two statements that Albright, the architect of appeasement of Islamo-fascism during the Clinton years, believes there is such an animal as "non-violent Islamists."
Is she correct?
What is the definition of "Islamist"?
In modern parlance, the term has come to mean a person committed to bringing Islam into every sphere of life through "jihad," or relentless, unending "holy war."
In other words, Islamists are the proponents of Islamo-fascism. They are the jihadists. They are the enemy we face in the 21st century. They are the very people with whom we, in America, have recognized too late as our mortal adversary in a battle to save what is left of Western Civilization.
Albright seemed to be directing her comments at authoritarian Middle East nations like Egypt, which seem to be facing a losing battle with the spread of Islamism. The Muslim Brotherhood, blamed for the assassination of Anwar al-Sadat, recently won 76 seats in parliamentary elections in that country.
There are two central flaws in the thinking of people like Albright:
the assumption that there is such a thing as "non-violent Islamists";
that democracy is the highest political ideal for which a nation and people can strive;
Both are wrong – dead wrong.
In his new book, "Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against America," Walid Phares, professor of Middle East studies and a media analyst on terrorism, explains that this notion that there are "non-violent Islamists" was discredited long ago.
"In 1991, I attended a series of panels at the Middle East Studies Association of America, the national elite in the field," he recounts.
In one panel, a veteran of research in the region said the North African Salfis have produced what he called NVIs (non-violent Islamists). He made a distinction between the violent and the non-violent Salafis. But the next 10 years in Algeria were a hell waged by the Salafis against the seculars; more than 150,000 were killed. Many scholars in the United States and Western Europe seriously misunderstood the jihadists and tried to classify them into categories. In fact, there were and are distinctions, but these are drawn by the fundamentalists themselves. They can choose to be violent or non-violent at their discretion – not at the discretion of Western experts.
In other words, Albright has fallen for the ruse – just as so many Western "experts" have found themselves trapped by the self-serving rhetoric of the "Palestinians." Islamists will do whatever is necessary to advance their cause – including lie about their true intentions, tactics and goals.
The second assumption – that democracy is the highest political ideal for which a nation can strive – should be more obvious to Americans, who long ago rejected "democracy" in favor of a constitutional republic of limited government and protections of unalienable human rights.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'Non-violent Islamists'?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: December 1, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Leave it to former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to invent a new term in the international political debate.
In a speech in the United Arab Emirates, she said it would be a mistake "to exclude Islamist parties" from the political debate in the Middle East "on the assumption they are inherently undemocratic or prone to violence."
She added, "The best way to marginalize violent extremists is to make room for as broad a range of non-violent perspectives as possible."
Therefore, we can assume from these two statements that Albright, the architect of appeasement of Islamo-fascism during the Clinton years, believes there is such an animal as "non-violent Islamists."
Is she correct?
What is the definition of "Islamist"?
In modern parlance, the term has come to mean a person committed to bringing Islam into every sphere of life through "jihad," or relentless, unending "holy war."
In other words, Islamists are the proponents of Islamo-fascism. They are the jihadists. They are the enemy we face in the 21st century. They are the very people with whom we, in America, have recognized too late as our mortal adversary in a battle to save what is left of Western Civilization.
Albright seemed to be directing her comments at authoritarian Middle East nations like Egypt, which seem to be facing a losing battle with the spread of Islamism. The Muslim Brotherhood, blamed for the assassination of Anwar al-Sadat, recently won 76 seats in parliamentary elections in that country.
There are two central flaws in the thinking of people like Albright:
the assumption that there is such a thing as "non-violent Islamists";
that democracy is the highest political ideal for which a nation and people can strive;
Both are wrong – dead wrong.
In his new book, "Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against America," Walid Phares, professor of Middle East studies and a media analyst on terrorism, explains that this notion that there are "non-violent Islamists" was discredited long ago.
"In 1991, I attended a series of panels at the Middle East Studies Association of America, the national elite in the field," he recounts.
In one panel, a veteran of research in the region said the North African Salfis have produced what he called NVIs (non-violent Islamists). He made a distinction between the violent and the non-violent Salafis. But the next 10 years in Algeria were a hell waged by the Salafis against the seculars; more than 150,000 were killed. Many scholars in the United States and Western Europe seriously misunderstood the jihadists and tried to classify them into categories. In fact, there were and are distinctions, but these are drawn by the fundamentalists themselves. They can choose to be violent or non-violent at their discretion – not at the discretion of Western experts.
In other words, Albright has fallen for the ruse – just as so many Western "experts" have found themselves trapped by the self-serving rhetoric of the "Palestinians." Islamists will do whatever is necessary to advance their cause – including lie about their true intentions, tactics and goals.
The second assumption – that democracy is the highest political ideal for which a nation can strive – should be more obvious to Americans, who long ago rejected "democracy" in favor of a constitutional republic of limited government and protections of unalienable human rights.
But "scholars" like Albright have confused the issue by promoting democracy around the world. President Bush has fallen into this trap as well. His entire administration uses the term interchangeably with "freedom." Democracy is not freedom. In fact, all democracies have inevitably fallen into tyranny, just as America's founders warned they would.
Democracy won't work in the Middle East any more than it would work elsewhere. Why do we continue to use the word and mislead people about the real goals of political reform – freedom, self-government, rule of law, protection of human rights?
As the Islamists and other totalitarians (from Adolf Hitler to the mullahs in Iran) have shown, elections will be used if and when they serve their ends – to achieve power. And, once in power, totalitarians by definition do not let go.
No, I am not exaggerating. Click the pic, go to "last," and read backwards.
If you are not informed about this stuff, you will be made sick. If you are informed, you will be made mad, all over again.
It's hard to believe she ever had a job in government. But then again: Jimmy Carter. Bill Clinton.
Maddy is the only woman alive that gives helen thomas hope!
LLS
"Those damn North Koreans played a dirty trick on us when they said they wouldn't use that nuclear fuel we gave them for weapons development!" What a miserable hag. Could she have possibly done more to open the door for Atta and the rest of those bastards?
Madeline Notsobright, looks like a troll..She is such a dumb witch but then who wasn't dumb that worked for Clinton to help him take down America..
The same Madeleine Albright who said that the US cannot exist without the UN.
the assumption that there is such a thing as "non-violent Islamists"
There are non-violent Islamists, our troops are making more of them every day.
Go, Troops!
Inquiring minds would like to know.
"Mad Maddie" Albright needs to learn a little more about islam.
She could start with the first dictionary definition given to the word "assassin."
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.