Posted on 08/11/2006 5:44:38 AM PDT by NotchJohnson
USING THE PROPER LABEL FOR TERRORISTS
Yesterday President George W. Bush caused quite a stir when he made a statement to the media on the airport tarmac. His exact words were: "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." That's right....he said it. Islamic fascists. It's about time somebody the president start using the proper label.
This didn't set too well with CAIR, the Council for American Islamic Relations. Perhaps a better name for that organization would be the Council for Anti-American Islamic Retaliation. But anyway, I digress. Back to CAIR's comments. Their executive director took issue with the Islamic fascism label, saying "We believe this is an ill-advised term and we believe that it is counter-productive to associate Islam or Muslims with fascism,"
Ill-advised? How can a term that is so fundamentally correct be "ill-advised?"
A quick check of Dictionary.com finds this definition of fascism: "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism." Sound familiar? Let's see....Iran...Syria....Iraq under Saddam Hussein...The Taliban....and on and on. Fascism is what these terrorists who were trying to blow up the planes yesterday ultimately want for every country. Total Islamic domination, in other words, a theocracy.
CAIR went on, speaking about the president: "We urge him and we urge other public officials to restrain themselves." Restrain themselves? Why should they? We're being attacked! Islamic fascists have declared war on Western culture in general, and the United States in particular. Our leaders are showing too much restraint, not too little.
Since when does speaking the truth require restraint? Just about every terrorist attack in the last 30 years has been committed in the name of Islam. That's their public relations problem, not ours.
By the way, no mention in the news coverage of CAIR's remarks of a condemnation of terrorism. Imagine my surprise.
Not really. For the last 5 years he's called them extremist members of the religion of peace.
Does anyone know when Bush last used the "religion of peace" phrase ? I haven't seen it used by him for the last few months/year, maybe ?
He calls it a religion of peace to not affend our many muslim allies. Which, BTW, have been invaluable in our fight against the terrorists, including Pakistan, which is a hotbed of terrorists. Jordan helped us snuff Zarqawi, and the Iraqi army is now doing some heavy lifting, as is the ever improving Afghan army.
Yet he has always called the enemy "terrorists", "jihadists", "muslim extremists", "evil", "islamic radicals" and also, "islamo-fascits".
"I think I hate CAIR more than the terrorists."
CAIR - Terrorst
Same thing
I'll define the enemy for you. It isn't "terrorism," it isn't even "islamofascism" or "radical islam." It is any muslim anywhere in the world that believes in those parts of the koran and hadiths including the example set by the prophet himself that instructs adherents to violate the physical, moral, and religious rights of others. The solution is to strike those sections from that religion and to make its practice or instruction illegal. Additionally, any mosque or other gathering place that preaches the hatred of islam should be closed and destroyed.
The violence of islam (including its cultic qualities) must be removed from the planet.
If there is anything left of islam after this is accomplished, it can remain in safety like any other faith.
Moderate muslims would welcome such an action if they are indeed moderate.
The proper term for Islamofascist Terrorists is
JIHADISTS
I think it is important to use this term because it emphasizes that THEY are on a Jihad War against US - using "Islamofascist" sounds desperate to me, Terrorist is an empty phrase -
JIHADISTS is what they call themselves, and what they are.
And that's how I always refer to them these days.
I'm often guilty of that myself - on the golf course. Ben Hogan said that golf is played mainly on the 5 1/2" space of ground between one's ears.
Note the line in this article - http://www.danielpipes.org/article/142
"Insight: Are our government authorities sufficiently protecting the American people from the dangers presented by militant Islam?
DP: Not enough, because they are unwilling to proclaim militant Islam the strategic enemy. Instead, they content themselves with statements declaring true Islam to be a religion of peace. We need to take militant Islam more seriously.
Insight: Seriously in what sense?
DP: Airline security offers a clear example. Being serious means enhanced scrutiny of those who are more likely to commit terrorism - something that is illegal at this time."
We don't hear CAIR, Saudi Arabia or other "friendly" Muslim countries or groups worrying about whether they are offending us - why are we bending over backwards in such a disproportionate fashion ? :)
"Maybe we should just settle for calling them what they call themselves, "those who wage jihad", or simply "jihadists"."
NO, this is an awful idea. Jihad is holy war.
There is nothing honorable or holy about the violence committed by militant Muhammadists. We should not dignify the efforts of militant Muhammadists by using their religious terminology.
The use of language is important in communicating the situation in time of war. In WW II, Germans and the German government were called Nazis, though you'll be hard pressed to find any German document that uses the word "Nazi". No American in 1941 would refer to WW II as a war to advance the interests of Bolsheviks and Jewish capitalists, to defile the Aryan race, and to deny Germans Lebensraum. That's what the enemy said, and only a fool would use the language of the enemy.
Why is it any different now? The enemy says he is fighting a holy war. If you call it a jihad, you're acknowledging that it is in fact a holy war and that you are in opposition to God. What could be more encouraging to religious fanatic that to have his enemy acknowledge the righteousness of his violence?
The Iranian people as a whole are far more pro-american than leftists worldwide. Who is the bigger poison, the leftists or the population of Iran or Iraq?
Who would you rather have fighting on your side, socialists or Northern Alliance muhjahadeen? Who has come down more aggressively on terrorists, the Jordanian and Moroccan police or the dutch?
Who calls the terrorists apostates? The libs or Al-Sistani?
The point is, regardless of their bass akwards religion, the long term solution is to make allies in the muslim world, which we have been doing. If all the Iraqis hated us as the leftist contend and hope for, then we'd been out of their lon, long ago.
I have not disagreed with that.
There are moderate muslims in the world who are afraid of the fanatical element and have been a big help and are good allies.
What I have said is that islam must be parsed and the moderate faith must be separated from the violent...and the violent part must be outlawed and destroyed.
Daniel pipes is blowing smoke. Yes, Bush has said Islam is a religion of peace. But he has also defined the enemy very well. And I assume if I take the time to quote him, oh lets say, 12 times defining the enemy succinctly, then you'll quit harping on this meme.
With that I agree. The real crux of the problem, as Horowitz has stated time and again, is the alliance of the islamo scum with the quisling left. It is true, and I don't have time to expound on all the reasons why its true. Suffice to say that at least half the problem has nothing to do with islam, per se.
But remember that however Sistani may describe the terrorists as apostates, he still supports the Hezzies in Lebanon and blames Israel entirely for the conflict in there.
I hate it when I have to agree with others...but dammit you are right again.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20051024&s=editorial102405
Note again these lines:
"But Bush's words to the National Endowment for Democracy proved to be major indeed--not to mention most welcome. In his speech, Bush all but admitted that the war on terrorism, a phrase he himself practically coined, is actually a misnomer. The United States is engaged in a struggle not against terrorism per se, Bush said, but against something more specific--an evil ideology that inspires terrorism. And, for the first time, Bush gave this evil a name.
"Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamofascism," Bush explained, before, for his own purposes, settling on the term Islamic radicalism
This was written in 2005 about a Bush speech in 2005. If you choose to disagree, which of course you may, why don't you provide a reference prior to 2005 in which Bush defined the terrorism we fight as Islamic radical extremism ? If you can't, it's you who are blowing smoke.
From Sept 20, 2001, speech to nation:
"The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics -- a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam. The terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and children."
June, 2004 to Homeland Security
"Here in Illinois, we convicted a man with a longstanding ties to bin Laden, who had been using a Chicago-area charity called the "Benevolence International Foundation" to channel money to Islamic militants".
November 2003, Whitehall England
"But the violence we are seeing in Iraq today is serious. And it comes from Baathist holdouts and jihadists from other countries and to the prospect of innocent bloodshed."
That's in a 5 minute search. So if you were confused on who the enemy was, it's not the President's fault.
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.