USING THE PROPER LABEL FOR TERRORISTS

neal nuze ^ | 08/11/06 | Boortz

[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.

[RBroadfoot]

It's not a "line of thought"; it's a fact that Jesus used the word "Allah" to refer to God.

The conclusions drawn from this fact are up to the individual.

I suppose that this is just a semantic argument we have. We both reject the Qur'an as a source of theological, religious and moral instruction. I argue that it gives a specious description of God and his commandments. You seem to argue that it is attempting to describe a different entity altogether. That argument would apply equally to deny that the Christian's trinitarian God is ontologically different from the Jew's God of the Torah. That argument has led to all sorts of death and destruction over the centuries.

WRT to the Gospel of Mark, it is indeed speculation, but it's educated speculation based upon Greek grammar and Aramaic idiom. Quite a few passages in Mark appear almost verbatim in Dead Sea Scrolls, which are of course in Aramaic. I'm no expert on this topic; I just read and try to understand.

[RichInOC]

USING THE PROPER LABEL FOR TERRORISTS

"Heat to 18-20 million degrees F. Simmer until vaporized."

[theBuckwheat]

>>
You seem to argue that it is attempting to describe a different entity altogether.
<<

Yes, exactly. Again, compare how the character of each is seen in how they describe themselves and how their followers act towards them.

Maybe a clearer example would be the deity "Baal" (a Canaanite-Phoenician word that means "master" or "lord"), who was popularly worshiped by Israel, but who is distinctly different in attributes than the Lord worshiped by David in the Psalms.

ref "Is there any evidence that Baal and Lord are equivalent?"

http://www.paleotimes.org/articles/BaalvsLord.htm

Followers of Islam claim that the Koran replaces the Torah, yet the Koran contradicts the Torah far more (IMO) than it complements or agrees with it. If the same deity authored both, why should there be any discontinuity between the two?

A simple example is that the Torah quotes God as saying Israel was his beloved nation. The Koran calls Jews (only one of the 12 tribes of Israel) vile names, that is after calling them "people of the book".

For whole host of reasons, I will let this be my last post on this subject.